sº = g º a
, sº º
2 * * * *
- - - , , ºr
* * *

---
:
--
3
É
s
-
É JJUIII º MIS (
#| LIBRARY \º
UNIVE
of THE
tº trºxºr
ºſ :ºs Sº
rº. ||
*||
Quasuruyº~~
| *. ºvºitºs,
3' * * *
º . -
&
*
U.
|
U
UI
Ul,
º
III/IIIII:
º 18||Nº||
2. Ecºnºſº -
>
-
ig
º
J
-
-:–





















7.5.2%
, T3-7
\, Sº
§.4%
§º N
&\\\\\\
Žiš §
§
2
..º. - §§§
\\ \\ § 㺠*\º sº
§§ \ ºğ º: *A *ś º g
§º
§§§§§WºW
\\ § \\ \\ §§§ ºš tºº W \º
\\ \\ \\ § §.º: §§ \
§ §§ §§ ºš. § tº
\. \\ \\ § \\ ºğ
º ºffliº
W \ \\\\\\ Nº. º § º
SW \\ § \\ §§ \ Wº: º!!!";
\ \\\\\\\\\\\\\\\ Wiś '*-*:
N\º sº
N S. * l | | \ §§§ t § -
• ** S | | --- NYS
S. - t
ANTOINTE A.R.N A UILTD.
T}octor of the Sorbonne
Frontispiece Vol. I.












































exº-sºº ºr
º s y Aj ()
º / & Ö
*~
‘.….-----8
...~~~~~~~~~~~"--~ T
*
THE GAL LICAN CHURCH.
HISTORY
OF THE
CHURCH OF FRANCE,
FROM THE CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA, A.D. 1516, TO
- THE REVOLUTION.
WITH AN INTRODUCTION.
P
\ & ‘
y”
By R.E. W. w"HENLEY JERVIS, M.A.,
PREBENDARY OF HEYTESBURY:
AUTHOR OF • THE STUDENT's HISTORY OF FRÄNCE.’
*~~~~~~~~
“Fluctuat, nec mergitur.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
IN TWO WOLUMES.—W OL. I.
W | T H P O R T R A | T S.
L ON DO N :
JOHN MURRAY, ALBEMARLE STREET.
1872.
The right of Translation is reserved.

LONDON
PRINTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMFORD STREET,
AND CHIARING CROSS,
PER E E A C E.
–6–-
THE present is an attempt to interest English readers
in a field of study which, for whatever reason, has not
received among us the amount of attention it deserves.
Our literature is not deficient, indeed, in popular pro-
ductions designed to illustrate different periods and
phases of the history of Christianity in France; but
they are of a sporadic and fragmentary character. The
religious life of that great province of Christendom has
not hitherto been treated in our language, so far as I
am aware, on any connected plan. Partial glimpses of
it have been offered us in memoirs of the Huguenots and
the Vaudois; in sketches of the Calvinistic Reforma-
tion ; in narratives of the persecutions which preceded
and followed the Revocation of the Edict of Nantes; in
notices of the adventures of Protestant refugees in our
own land and elsewhere. These are stirring themes,
commanding, in their due measure, our earnest sym-
pathies. They are, however, but episodes; episodes,
too, of a somewhat narrow and one-sided type. The
position of the Calvinists of France, with regard to
the National Church from which they separated, cor-
responds exactly with that of the Lollards, the Puritans,
and the more modern Nonconforming sects, with refer-
ence to the National Church of England.
In like manner the English mind has become familiar
a 2
iV PREFACE.
with certain memorable movements affecting the in-
ternal history of the Church in France, which are asso-
ciated with individual names of widespread celebrity.
Most persons of average culture are acquainted with
the main features of the desperate war between Jesuit
and Jansenist. The studious of both sexes have lingered
over the fascinating, almost romantic, annals of Port-
Royal; they have admired the lofty independence of
St. Cyran, the heroism of Antoine Arnauld, the steadfast
endurance of the Abbess Angélique, the splendid genius
and matchless wit of Pascal. Nor have there been
wanting, from time to time, those who have recognised
the attractions of Bossuet and the “Four Gallican
Articles; ” of Fénelon and the “Maximes des Saints; ”
of the oratorical triumphs of Bourdaloue and Massillon;
of the herculean labours of the Benedictines of St.
Maur.
Yet the eclectic mode of dealing with Church history,
in sections capriciously detached from their context, is
always attended with more or less disadvantage. It is
questionable whether the events of any given passage
of the Church's life can be rightly interpreted except in
connexion with the lessons and experience both of
antecedent and of subsequent times. All Christian
ages are intensely cognate. The history of any one
of them demands, as its full complement and ultimate
elucidation, the history of all. If the law of continuity
—the mysterious concatenation of cause and effect—be
a recognised principle in the world of nature, much
more does it reign supreme over the Spiritual Economy.
In mundane concerns its precise operation must often
be matter of uncertain speculation. Human institutions
vary with the “spirit of the age; ” and it is not always
easy to account for the fluctuations of that extremely
PREFACE. V
volatile and fugitive element in the history of nations.
Political dynasties rise and fall; one race succeeds
another on the proud pinnacle of earthly domination ;
art and science, philosophy and literature, social refine-
ment, industrial enterprise, military prestige, migrate
from clime to clime, sink and decay, revive and flourish,
—by steps which in all cases are difficult to analyse,
and in some are so obscure as to elude investigation.
But the organisation of the Church is Divine and
changeless. Its external polity, its doctrine, its laws,
its ordinances, as they were received in the days e.g. of
Augustine or Gregory the Great, are no mere matters
of curiosity for the antiquary or of criticism for the
scholar, but matters of universal interest, facts of ever-
enduring moment, decisions for all time. The threefold
cord of continuity—continuity (1) of government, (2)
of doctrinal faith, (3) of Sacramental Grace—may be
said to constitute the “philosophy’ of Christian history.
To this normal law of its being, to this vital inter-
pretative principle, all the multiform details of the
Church's action may be referred. This is the secret of
its marvellous strength ; the sufficient explanation of its
mightiest triumphs.
The Church is, indeed, subject to strange vicissitudes
and startling anomalies. Its life is a many-sided life,
full of varying lights and shadows, seasons of prosperity
and adversity, alternations of apparent defeat and visible
success, wide contrasts of individual character, ranging
between the extreme of weakness and inconsistency and
the most exalted saintliness. But, viewed comprehen-
sively, it is the perpetual outgrowth of God's new crea-
tion; the uninterrupted development of the Kingdom
of grace. The history of that life is continuous beyond
all other examples of continuity. The existing state of
vi PREFACE.
Christendom is, in the most literal sense, the product
of the past; while, on the other hand, the past is the
most faithful interpreter of the manifold enigmas and
perplexities, as well as of all the hopeful phenomena,
which characterize the present.
By this rule I have endeavoured to guide myself in
surveying the particular branch of the vast stream of
history to which these volumes relate. Without pre-
tending to furnish a complete or highly-finished picture
of the Gallican Communion through all the centuries
of its existence, it has been my object to draw together
some of the more important links by which the Primi-
tive and the Mediaeval are connected with modern
developments of Catholicity; to indicate those great
landmarks of ancient Tradition to which successive
generations of the Gallican episcopate were wont to
recur in moments of perplexity and peril; to elucidate
the relationship between the Church of Martin and
Hilary, of Avitus and Caesarius, of Bernard and Ivo,
and the “Ecclesia docens” of times bordering on our
OWIOl.
The treasures of French literature, in the department
of ecclesiastical history, antiquities, and biography, are
so copious, so well digested, and so easily accessible, as
to leave the student little or nothing to desire. The
chief difficulty is the “ embarras de richesse; ”—the
question of selection. I subjoin a brief account of
the principal sources from which my materials have
been drawn. -
There are two extensive collections of information
relating to the history of the Gallican Church, which
have the advantage of bearing the stamp of official
authority. The first is that entitled ‘Recueil des Actes,
Titres et Mémoires, concernant les affaires du Clergé de
JPREFACE. vii
France.’ The second is the ‘Collection des Procès-
ºverbaux des Assemblées Générales du Clergé de
France.’ The former work was undertaken originally
in 1645; and was continued, in a series of constantly
enlarged editions, down to 1771, when it was re-
published for the last time. Its present form and plan
of distribution were suggested to the Assembly of the
Clergy in the year 1700 by a distinguished advocate of
the Parliament of Paris, named Le Merre. He was
commissioned to execute it, under the superintendence
of Cardinal de Noailles, the Archbishop of Narbonne,
and the Bishops of Laon and Troyes. The learned
Abbé Dorsanne, Canon and Archdeacon of Notre Dame,
was afterwards associated with him in the work.
It is arranged under six divisional heads. (I.) The
Catholic faith and doctrine of the Church. (II.)
The Ministers of the Church. (III.) Divine Service.
(IV.) Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction. (V.) The benefices
and other property of the Church. (VI.) The privi-
leges and immunities of the Church and Clergy. These
various sections comprise an immense mass of historical
documents and records, illustrating in eatenso the details
of doctrinal belief and ecclesiastical discipline as re-
ceived and administered in France. The chief authori-
ties cited are the great CEcumenical Councils, the Canon
Law, Gallican Provincial Synods, Royal Ordonnances,
and the arrêts of the Courts of Parliament. It is,
however, by no means a mere compilation of dry facts
and judicial decisions. It is interspersed throughout
with learned notes and observations by the Editors,
containing critical and explanatory matter of deep
interest. In some instances they have inserted entire
treatises by approved divines; among which is that
by Hallier, Bishop of Cavaillon, on Jurisdiction, and
viii PREFACE.
Bossuet's ‘Exposition de la Foi Catholique. The
YIIth Volume consists of an elaborate synopsis of the
tradition of the Church from the earliest times on
the subject of ecclesiastical Elections, including a view
of the changes introduced in that respect by the Con-
cordat of Bologna. - -
The ‘Collection des Procès-verbaux des Assemblées
Générales, Ordinaires, et Extraordinaires du Clergé de
France’ consists, as its title implies, of the authorized
series of reports of the proceedings of the Clergy in
their representative Assemblies held periodically by
royal licence in or near Paris. It is a production in the
highest degree honourable to the Church of France.
Though concerned to a great extent with temporal
matters, these volumes bear ample testimony to the
eminent merits and attainments of the authors in every
branch of ecclesiastical knowledge and duty. They
extend from the year 1560-61, when the Gallican
clergy were first convoked for the despatch of business
in the new form which was substituted for their ancient
canonical Synods, down to 1786, when the Revolution
was almost at the doors. If, amid the severe ordeals
to which the Church was subjected during that long
period, the Assemblies of the Clergy failed occasionally
in consistency and dignity, it must be allowed that the
voluminous records of their debates exhibit a reach and
variety of learning, an extent of patient research, and
an ardent zeal for the interests of religion, which are
above all praise.
The masterpieces of the great Gallican School of
divines who flourished in the seventeenth and eighteenth
centuries, though not strictly historical in form, are
replete with the indispensable materials of history, and
are the most trustworthy guides that we possess in
PREFACE. - ix
their different spheres of ecclesiastical erudition. I
allude, of course, to such works as that of Archbishop
De Marca, ‘De Concordiá Sacerdotii et Imperii; the
‘Gallia Christiana’ of the Benedictine Denis de Sainte-
Marthe; the collection of ancient Gallican Councils by
the Jesuit Sirmond ; the ‘’Vetus et Nova Ecclesiae
Disciplina,' by Louis Thomassin, of the Oratory; and
Helyot's ‘Histoire des Ordres Monastiques.’ To these
must be added the ‘Collectio Judiciorum de novis
erroribus, qui ab initio XII saeculi usque ad annum
MDCCXXXV in Ecclesiá proscripti sunt, by Charles
Duplessis d’Argentré, Bishop of Tulle; a work of the
highest authority, and of immense value to the historical
student.
With respect to the celebrated ‘Defensio Declara-
tionis Cleri Gallicani’ of Bossuet, I may here mention
that, since writing the notice of it which occurs in the
text of my work, further investigation has served to
convince me more thoroughly, if possible, of the au-
thenticity of that noble apology. Count De Maistre
(‘De l'Église Gallicane, liv. ii. chap. ix.) has dis-
cussed this question with all his characteristic acuteness
and ingenuity, and has exhausted, I apprehend, the
arguments by which it is sought to reduce to discredit
a production so fatally subversive of Ultramontane
pretensions. But I confess that his reasonings appear
to me to tell against the conclusion he desires to esta-
blish. The fact that both the Bishop and Louis XIV.
betrayed a disinclination to publish the ‘Defensio’ to
the world, when we consider the principles which it
enunciates, and the delicate relations existing at the
moment between France and Rome, is Surely no proof
that it ought not to be reckoned among the genuine
works of Bossuet, but rather the reverse. Upon the
X PREFACE.
hypothesis that it does represent the real sentiments and
mature theological judgment of the great prelate, the
circumstances of the case are perfectly intelligible.
Bossuet is known to have entertained extreme con-
siderateness for “the tender ears of the Romans.”
Both he and his royal master naturally hesitated, at
the close of a lengthened and agitating contest, to
commit themselves to any overt step which might
excite a renewal of irritation at the Vatican. They
felt, doubtless, that although it might be necessary
to show, on a given occasion, that the principles of
Gallicanism are capable of being successfully vindicated,
there was no need to re-embark upon the sea of con-
troversy at a conjuncture when, through the wise
forbearance of the reigning Pontiff, the Church was
in the way to regain the inestimable blessings of unity
and peace. -
With the exception of the ‘Annals' of Charles Le
Cointe, which extend no further than the middle of the
ninth century, no connected history of the Church of
France appeared till the year 1730, when the Jesuit
Jacques Longueval published the first four volumes
of his ‘Histoire de l'Église Gallicane.' Four more
volumes issued from the press in 1733 and 1734; and
after the death of Longueval the work was continued
by several Fathers of the same Order in succession,--
Fontenay, Brumoy, and Berthier. But their united
labours carried them only down to the close of the
reign of Henry II. To say that these volumes dis-
cover no traces of the special theological proclivities
of the authors would not be strictly true. Several con-
troverted questions of grave import are so treated as
to favour those views of the monarchical constitution
of the Church, and the universal autocratic jurisdic-
| PREFACE. xi
tion of the Roman See, which characterize the ultra-
Catholic or Curialistic school. But the general execu-
tion is so excellent, that the work must always remain
a text-book for those who seek a detailed acquaintance
with the fortunes of the Church in France. The Dis-
sertations are the result of laborious original, research,
abound with learning, and are admirable in point of
style.
Among the authorities for the ecclesiastical history
of the seventeenth century, I have derived great assist-
ance from the ‘Mémoires chronologiques et dogmatiques
pour servir à l'histoire ecclésiastique depuis 1600 jus-
qu’en 1716, which, though published anonymously, are
known to be from the pen of Hyacinthe Robillard
d'Avrigny, a Jesuit of Caen. The author possessed
many of the highest qualities of a historian ; and his
power of wit and refined satire imparts to his pages
an interest which never flags. The work, however, is
essentially controversial. It enters at length into the
details of the manifold disputes in which the Order of
Loyola played so conspicuous a part, and exhibits a
spirited picture of the whole course of the Jansenistic
conflict. On the other hand, D'Avrigny is defective
and meagre on topics relating to the interior and
practical life of the Church. He has but a scanty
notice of St. François de Sales. He treats the illustrious
school of Port-Royal almost exclusively in its polemical
aspect. He is silent as to the Apostolical character
and marvellous labours of St. Vincent de Paul.
The ‘Abrégé de l'histoire ecclésiastique,' by the
Abbé Bonaventure Racine, is framed on a totally
different plan. All this writer's sympathies are with
the Jansenists. He wrote under the special patronage
of Caylus, Bishop of Auxerre, one of the last and most
xii . PREFACE.
zealous of the “Appellant” prelates. The earlier part
of Racine's work is marked by a tone of moderation,
and is extremely valuable; but the later volumes are
deeply imbued with the spirit of sectarianism, and may
be described as an elaborate apology for Jansenism.
The great controversy on the doctrines of Grace,
which overshadowed with its sinister influence the
whole of the seventeenth century and more than half
of the eighteenth, was an infinitely prolific source of
ecclesiastical literature. I have carefully consulted the
chief works of acknowledged weight and merit on this
subject, whether proceeding from the Augustinian or
the Molinist camp,-from champions or opponents of
the Constitution “Unigenitus.” These will be found
duly quoted in the foot-notes. I have, moreover, pro-
fited by the opportunity of examining a curious and
probably unique collection of publications bearing on
this question, which formerly belonged to a well-known
Appellant ecclesiastic in one of the southern French
dioceses, and is now deposited in the public library at
Bayonne.
The series of MSS. in the British Museum known as
the “Gualterio Papers’ contains a mass of corre-
spondence between persons who exercised more or less
influence on the affairs of the Church during the critical
period from 1696 to 1725. Cardinal Gualterio was
Vice-legate of Avignon, and was sent as Nuncio to
Paris by Pope Innocent XII. in February, 1700. He
rose high in the favour of Louis XIV., who presented
him to the Abbey of St. Remi at Reims. His learning
and literary tastes brought him into confidential rela-
tions with the leading theologians and Savans of France,
by whom he was held in singular esteem. The Cardinal
formed during his residence in France an extensive
PREFACE. xiii
and valuable library, which unfortunately perished at
sea on the passage from Marseilles to Italy; but at his
death, in 1728, he left behind him a second collection,
larger and more precious than the first. The Gualterio
Papers throw much light upon the complications which
arose out of the bull Unigenitus; the Cardinal having
been constantly in communication with Cardinals De
Noailles, Fleury, D’Estrées, De Bouillon, De Bissy, and
Dubois, as also with the Jesuit Lafiteau, the well-known
agent of the French government at Rome.
I am bound to acknowledge gratefully my obligations,
to the Abbé Guettee, whose able work, ‘Histoire de
l'Église de France, composée sur les documents origi-
naux et authentigues, has been a constant companion
of my labours. The name of M. Guettée is one of
well-established reputation in the ecclesiastical world,
and it would be presumptuous in me to speak of him in
the language of eulogy. Possibly it may not be known
to some readers that certain sentiments expressed by
this author on vexed questions of Church government
and discipline were visited, twenty years ago, with
formal censure by the See of Rome. His ‘History’ was
placed upon the Index of prohibited books by a decree
of the Congregation in January, 1852. The Abbé
employed every available means to obtain some ex-
planation of this sentence from official quarters, but
without success. It is clear, however, from the remarks
prefixed to his seventh and eighth volumes, that the
opinions which, in the judgment of the Roman autho-
rities, render the work so fraught with danger to the
welfare of the faithful, may be classed under three
heads—the primitive organisation of the Church; Gal-
licanism and Ultramontanism ; and the tribunal of the
Inquisition. When we recollect that even Cardinal
xiv. PREFACE.
Bellarmine incurred in his day a similar rebuke, on the
ground of certain qualifying considerations advanced
in one of his treatises as to the universal and absolute
Supremacy of the Pope, we shall perhaps cease to
wonder at the stigma inflicted, without cause as-
signed, upon the Abbé Guettee. No man is better
able than this accomplished divine to undertake his
own defence, were the opportunity offered him of
meeting specific charges of heterodoxy. As it is, he
has felt constrained to take the serious and (I venture
to think) questionable step of separating from the
Church of his baptism, and has joined the Orthodox
Communion of the East.
The paramount demand made by the educated in-
tellect of our day upon those who take in hand to
interpret the records of the past is—truth. The world
is not inclined to accept with credulous faith narratives
of which the too-perceptible purpose is to ventilate a
favourite theory or to prove a foregone conclusion;
nor will it longer tolerate those who would substitute
the visions of imagination or conjecture for the stern
realities of history. My readers will give me credit,
H trust, for having aspired to ascertain the truth; but I
dare not flatter myself that in all cases I have attained
that end. In a work like the present, concerned so
largely with the history of thought and opinion, with
the prejudices and intrigues of contending parties, with
transactions in which the inevitable alloy of human
frailty has been systematically overlaid with a varnish
of affected probity and virtue, much must be left, after
all, to the independent judgment of the candid and
competent reader. - . -
Writers of history usually seek to inspire the public
with a belief in their impartiality; and I am fully alive
FREFACE. XV
to the value of that enviable distinction. It is to be
observed, however, that impartiality does not mean
indifference. The ecclesiastical inquirer is not bound
to take up a position as it were ab eatra, as if he had
no personal concern or interest in the events which
pass under his review. There is a pseudo-impartiality,
the working of which is scarcely less detrimental to
the cause of truth, especially of religious truth, than the
most reckless spirit of partisanship. The style of
Gibbon, for example, wears pre-eminently a calm, dis-
passionate, disinterested air; yet who will contend that
Gibbon is in reality an impartial investigator of matters
which concern the Christian Church He affects on
such topics an attitude of perfect equilibrium, without
prepossession in any direction ; but is he on that
account a more efficient guide? Is he the better
qualified, by such cynical professions, to form a satis-
factory estimate of the questions e.g. which were de-
bated and determined at Chalcedon of the theory of
ecclesiastical Jurisdiction ? of the acts of the Council
of Florence Pº -
To be impartial, it is not requisite, either for writers
or for readers, that they should have no fixed principles,
or that, having them, they should seek to conceal the
fact. The essential point is, that we should not suffer
our personal predilections to mislead our critical judg-
ment, or to interfere with the Supreme claims of
historical truth. It should be our aim to appreciate
the character of others, to enter into their views and
feelings, to make all due allowance for their difficulties,
to interpret their conduct in the most favourable light
* See Gibbon, Roman Empire, vol. ii. pp. 202–4; Vol. vi. p. 28; vol. viii. p. 100
(Dr. Smith's edition, 1854).
xvi BREEACE.
possible. But, on the other hand, no such considera-
tions will justify us in abdicating our own intellectual
independence, or in doing violence to earnest and con-
scientiously-formed conviction.
Under such impressions I commend to the indulgence
of the literary world a work upon which I have been
engaged for several years past at no inconsiderable cost
of thought and labour. None of my readers can be more
sensible than myself of its many defects, and of the
disproportion which it bears to the vastness of the sub-
ject which it attempts to illustrate. I am not without
hope, however, that it may be found to throw addi-
tional light, in some instances, upon what has hitherto
been more or less a terra incognita in the history of
the Church; and others may perhaps be stimulated
to pursue the investigation of certain questions of
collateral interest, which I have been compelled to
dismiss with a brief and imperfect analysis.
To the kind friends and relatives to whom I am so
materially indebted for advice, criticism, and sympathy,
I offer my most cordial and grateful acknowledgments.
28, Holland PARK, W.
March 22, 1872.
* * CONTENTS OF volumE I.
INTRODUCTION.
Nationalism in Religion . . . . . . . . . .
In what sense and to what extent legitimate
General character of Gallicanism e dº e g
Early relations of Gallican Church with Rome
Appeals to Rome. S. Leo and S. Hilary
Patriarchal jurisdiction of the Pope ..
The “Liber Diurnus’
Ecclesiastical “Liberty” ...
Perversion of Gallican Liberty
Ancient and Modern Gallicanism
Freedom of Ecclesiastical Election ..
Gallican Councils on Elections..
Changes under the Feudal System ..
Question of Investiture . . . .
Elections by Cathedral Chapter
Pragmatic Sanction of Saint Louis . . . . . . . . .
Jurisdiction of Provincial and National Councils ..
Interposition of the Papacy
Administration of Charlemagne
Development of Papal Power ..
Extension of Appellate Jurisdiction ..
Hincmar of Reims is tº dº e º &
The Forged Decretals ſº tº g º ºs & Cº º
Popes and Councils in the ninth century
Deposition of Arnulf of Reims ..
System of Papal Legates ..
Disuse of Provincial Councils ..
Restrictions imposed on Legates ... ... ..
Institution of “Assemblée Générale du Clergé’’
Ancient and Modern Synods compared
Agens-généraux du Clergé
Theory of Ecclesiastical Jurisdiction tº º
Relations of Temporal and Spiritual Power ..
WOL. I.
. 24–27
. 29, 30
. 50, 51
PAGE
4, 5
6–8
10
... 11–12
. 13, 14
16
. 17, 18
. 20, 21
22
23
28.
31
32
33
35
... 36–39
... 40, 41.
. 44–47
46
48
49
52
tº e 53
... 54–56
xviii CONTENTS OF WOLUME I.
Innocent III. on Papal Jurisdiction . . . . . . . . . . . .
Boniface VIII. and Philip the Fair
The Bull “ Unam Sanctam ” e e º 'º s e e º e s a 6
Violence of Philip. Death of Boniface ... . . . . . .
The Ecclesiastical Courts tº º e º e
Resistance to Ecclesiastical Judges
Aggressions of the Temporal Power
The “Appel comme d'abus” ... . . . . . . . .
“Droit de Régale”
The Popes of Avignon . . . . . . . . . . ... --
The Great Schism of the Wes
Results of the Schism .. tº ſº
Efforts of the University of Paris
France demands a General Council © tº
Measures during “Soustraction d'obédience *
Council of Pisa. . . . .
Gerson on General Councils ..
Council of Constance. The Decrees
Ultramontane objections considered ... . . . . . . . .
Council of Basle o
National Council of Bourges
Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges
Rome opposes it e tº
The Parliaments defend it -
Pseudo-Council of Pisa ... . . . . . . . . . . . . ... •..
The Fifth Lateran Council ..
The Concordat of Bologna
Resistance to the Concordat ..
The Concordat registered in Parliament
Practical fruits of the Concordat ..
CHAPTER I.
109
. 110–112
Commencement of the Reformation
Ecclesiastical Abuses © tº º e
Resistance to Doctrinal Changes ... . . . .
Lutheranism condemned by the Sorbonne ..
Censure of Erasmus
Provincial Council of Sens
Project of a General Council..
Opening of the Council of Trent ..
Henry II. opposes the Council
Inconsistent policy of Henry II. ..
Suspension of the Council ... ..
113
114
115
116
117
. 118, 119
. 120, 121
122
124
125
126
CONTENTS OF WOLUME I.
CHAPTE R II.
Strength of Protestantism in France
Character of the Reforming Movement
The Party Leaders
The Cardinal of Lorraine
Persecution of the Huguenots &
Attempt to establish the Inquisition ..
Trials for Heresy .. e Q
Conspiracy of Amboise ..
Catherine de Medicis . . . . . . . . . . ...
The “Tiers-parti.” The Chancellor De l'Hôpital
The States-General of Orleans e e º ºf
Resumption of the Council of Trent ... ..
Queen Catherine's Letter to Pope Pius IV...
The Colloquy of Poissy e e - e º ºs e a
The “Triumvirate.” Outbreak of Civil War
French Embassy to the Council of Trent
The Gallican Episcopate at Trent
Views of the Cardinal of Lorraine
Debates on Episcopal Jurisdiction.
Debate on Ecclesiastical Residence
The French “Articles of Reformation ”
“Reformation of Secular Princes”
Resentment of the Court of France
French Ambassadors leave Trent
Measures against Bishops suspected of Heresy
Termination of the Council ..
Objections to its reception in France ..
Opinion of Charles Dumoulin . . . . . .
French Synods for Reception of the Council
Its Publication refused by French Government ..
CHAPTER III.
JPAGE
127
128
129
130
131
132
133
134
135
136
137
138
139
. 140–145
146
147
151
& 152
. 153–155
156
157
, 159–160
161
162
163
165
167
168
169
170
The “Catholic League” or “Holy Union”..
Designs of the League .. ge e º 'º e &
Extortions of the Crown from the Church ..
Arguments of the League
The Clergy and the League ..
Sixtus W. and Henry of Navarre ..
Clerical Denunciations of Henry III. ..
Outbreak of Insurrection. The Barricades..
Assassination of the Guises ..
The Sorbonne and the League
Anomalous character of the League
172
. 173–175
176
177
178
18O
182
184
185
º 186
. 187—188
b 2
XX CONTENTS OF WOLUME I.
Claude de Saintes .. & ſº
Génébrard Archbishop of Aix
Decline of the League ..
Conference of Suresnes .. e &
The “Satyre Menippée” ... ... ..
Pierre Pithou on the Gallican Liberties
Results of the League ..
CEIAPT ER IV.
Conversion of Henry IV. . . . . . . . .
Difficulties of Henry. Boucher's Sermons..
Henry applies to Rome for Absolution
Ceremony of Henry's Absolution ..
Factious conduct of the Huguenots
The Edict of Nantes tº gº to gº tº
Policy of Henry towards the Huguenots
Revival of Catholicism .. is ſº
Successful Administration of Henry
CELA PTE R. W.
Results of the “Wars of Religion”
Corruptions of the Church • * . . . .
Dilapidated Churches. Efforts of Restoration ..
Cardinal Du Perron s tº º e
Du Perron and Duplessis-Mornay tº e
Effects of the Conference. Isaac Casaubon
French Cardinals .. gº tº
Recall of the Jesuits to France
Father Cotton . . . .
Jesuit Establishments. La Flèche
François de Sales .. tº e º e
The Reformed Carmelites in France
Opposition to De Bérulle
Madame Acarie e e º dº º tº dº tº
Madame de Chantal. The Visitandines
Cardinal De Bérulle tº e ſº
Foundation of the French Oratory
Labours of the Oratorians
PAGE
189
. 190–191
193
194
195
196
. 197, 198
199
. 200, 201
202
203
204
205
. 207–208
209
. 210, 211
212
213
215
216
... 218–220
... 221, 222
... 224–226
... 227—232
233
235
. 236–240
241
243
245
. 247, 248
249
CHAPTER WI.
Assassination of Henry IV. ..
Decree of the Faculty of Theolog
Resentment against the Jesuits
... 250, 251
. 254—256
257
258
. 259–260
CONTENTS OF WOLUME I.
James I. and Cardinal Bellarmine
Erastianism ... . . . .
Relations between Church and State ..
Predominance of the Jesuits..
Edmond Richer tº gº tº gº tº
The University and the Jesuits
Richer's Treatise tº
Submission of Richer
Condemnation of Suarez
Intrigues of the Great Nobles
Meeting of the States-General
The “Loi fondamentale”
Summary of proceedings
Speech of Richelieu -
The Episcopal Manifesto
Antonio De Dominis
CEIAPTER WII.
Louis and the States of Béarn • . . . .
Reconciliation of Louis and the Queen Mother ..
Louis XIII. in Béarn
Insurrection of the Huguenots
Defeat of Louis before Montauban
Conversion of Marshal Lesdiguières
Submission of the Huguenots ... ... ..
Richelieu Prime Minister
Peace with the Huguenots
Policy of Richelieu e tº gº ſº e º gº tº
Intrigues in the Assembly of Clergy ..
The Parliament and the Clergy ..
The Parliament and the Jesuits ..
Censure of Santarelli
Siege of La Rochelle
De Bérulle and Richelieu
CEIAPTIER VIII.
Vincent de Paul . . . . . . . . . .
Retreats conducted by Vincent de Paul
“Tuesday Conferences” of St. Lazare
Filles de la Charité tº e
Compagnie des Dames de Charité
Olier and the Seminary of S. Sulpice ..
xxi
IPAGE
261
262
, 263—264
265
... 266–269
. 270–272
273
274.
275
276
. 277–281
282
283
... 284–285
286
. 287–289
291
292
293
... 295–296
297
298
299
. 300–301
302
... 303—304
... 305–306 "
... 30.7–308 -
, 309—310~
311
... 312–314
. 315–316
... 317–322
... 323–324
... 325–326
... 327–328
... 329–330
, 331–332
xxii CONTENTS OF WOLUME I.
CIH. A. PTER IX.
Revival of the Benedictine Rule ..
Congregation of St. Maur
Port-Royal des Champs
The Abbess Angélique ..
Port-Royal de Paris e
Maison du Saint-Sacrément ..
C HAPTER X.
Ecclesiastical Policy of Richelieu
His differences with the Court of Rome . . . . . . , ,
Outcry for a Gallican Synod .. tº e
“Preuves des libertés de l'Église Gallicane
“Optatus Gallus”. . . . . . . . . . . . . .
De Marca “De Concordiá. Sacerdotii et Imperii”
The “Diables de Loudun”
Urbain Grandier . . . . . . . . . . . .
Affair of the Marriage of the Duke of Orleans
Gallican Clergy on Royal Marriages
Mission of Bishop Fenouillet to Rome
Unjust Taxation of the Clergy tº º
Richelieu and the Abbé de St. Cyran ... .
The Jesuits and the Bishop of Chalcedon ..
St. Cyran—“Petrus Aurelius’ g
St. Cyran Imprisoned at Vincennes
Death of Cardinal Richelieu..
Death of the Abbé de St. Cyran ..
e e
33 .
C HAPTER XI.
Commencement of the Jansenistic Controversy
Augustine on Grace and Free-will
Reaction from Augustinianism
Doctrine of the Council of Trent ..
System of Molina. . . . . . . . . . .
The Congregation “de Auxiliis” e tº gº tº
Publication of the “Augustinus’ of Jansenius
The Bull “In eminenti” o tº
Antoine Arnauld defends Jansenius
Arnauld ‘De la fréquente Communion’
Intrigues against Antoine Arnauld ... ... ... ..
Letter of Bishops to Urban VIII. in favour of Arnauld
... 353, 354
... 355–356
... 357–858
... 359–360
. 361—362
PAGE
... 333-334
... 335–338
... 339–340
... 341–342
... 343–344
. 345–346
347
348
349
350
35].
352
363
364
. 365–366
367
374
375
376
377
, 378-380
381
382
... 383–384
385
386
387
389
... 390–394
. 395–396
397
CONTENTS OF WOLUME I.
Proselytes to Jansenism tº tº gº e
Rivalry of Jansenists and Molinists
The “Five Propositions” ... . . . . . . . . ..
The Bishops appeal to the Pope ..
The Propositions examined at Rome ..
Arguments of the Jansenist Deputies ..
Grounds of the Decision
C HAPTER XII.
The Bull “Cum occasione "... ..
Reception of the Bull in France ..
Policy of Cardinal Mazarin ..
Evasive system of the Jansenists..
Report of the Assembly of Clergy
Persecution of Port-Royal
Affair of the Duc de Liancour tº e
Arnauld's ‘Letters to a Duke and Peer’
Arnauld condemned by the Sorbonne ..
Deprivation of Arnauld
CEIAPT ER XIII.
Pascal’s ‘Provincial Letters'
Miracle of the “Sainte Épine”
Proceedings against the Casuists ..
Father Pirot's ‘Apology’
Censure of the ‘ Provincial Letters
Pascal On le “Droit,” et le “Fait.”
Death of Pascal and of his sister Jacqueline
e
5
O HAPTER XIV.
The Clergy and the Formulary ... . . . . . .
Antoine Arnauld and Pavillon Bishop of Alet ..
Theory of Papal Infallibility tº ſº
Death of Cardinal Mazarin ... . . . . . .
Religious Policy of Louis XIV. . . . . . . . .
Persecution of the two Convents of Port-Royal ..
The Formulary enforced at Port-Royal
Episcopal opposition to the Formulary e tº e º e º e
Dispute between Louis XIV. and Rome. The Six Articles
Negotiation for Peace . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
The Bishop of Comminges and Father Ferrier
Abortive issue of the Conferences
xxiii
PAGE
. 399–400
401
403
... 405–406
. 407–408
409
411
. 412–414
415
416
. 417–418
419
420
. 421–422
423
424–425
. 426–427
... 428-434
. 435–438
439
440
. 441–442
443
444
. 445–446
447
. 448–449
450
451
452
. 453–454
455
456
457
458
460
sº
xxiv. CONTENTS OF VoIUME I.
- - PAGE
- The Formulary enforced by Royal Edict . . . . . . . . . . . . 461
Archbishop. Péréfixe at Port-Royal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 462,464
The Bull “Regiminis Apostolici” ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . 465
Prosecution of the Four Bishops . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 466
Accession of Pope Clement IX. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 467
Letter to the Pope in defence of the Four Bishops ... . . . . . . 468
Letter of the Four Bishops to the Gallican Episcopate ... ... .. 469
Progress of the Negotiation for restoring Peace ... ... ... ... .. 470
Letter of the Four Bishops to Clement IX. • * c e º e º 'º e 4.71
The “Peace of Clement IX.” . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 472–476
THE GALLICAN CHURCH.
INTRODUCTION.
I.
RELIGIOUS NATIONALITY-religion in a shape peculiar to one
section of the human family, or one territorial circumscrip-
tion of the globe—is, primâ facie, an idea foreign to the genius
of Christianity. Nations, viewed in the light of the new federal
relations established by the Gospel, are not independent, but
interdependent. Judaism was a national religion, localized,
isolated, geographically limited; but the Kingdom of Christ is
world-wide. The Church Catholic takes no note of any distinc-
tions of physical race, except to obliterate and extinguish them.
That vast “net which is cast into the sea” of the moral creation,
and “gathered of every kind,”—that common home of redeemed
humanity, “where there is neither Greek nor Jew, circumcision
nor uncircumcision, barbarian, Scythian, bond nor free”—is
essentially the same to all whom it embraces, however widely
they may differ as to primitive descent or social organization.
They who “by one Spirit are all baptized into one body, and
have been all made to drink into One Spirit,” are strictly “fellow
citizens” in the Christian sense of the word, whether their lot be
cast in the temperate or the torrid Zone—whether they be classi-
fied, after the order of nature, as Celtic or Teutonic, Aryan or
Aramean. The curse of Babel is revoked by the Pentecostal
benediction; and “ the whole earth,” in so far as it is Christian,
is again “of one language and of one speech.”
At the same time it is clear that Christianity, while un-
changeable in essence, is to a certain extent plastic in applica-
tion. It admits of some variety in outward development and
administrative detail. It is not uninfluenced by the innate
qualities of the soil in which it grows; it adapts itself to the
material with which it has to deal. The Church Catholic,
wherever it has fixed its Sojourn among men, has been coloured
WOL. I. B
2 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
more or less by the moral atmosphere and other exceptional in-
fluences with which it has been brought into contact. Such
distinctions have arisen in all lands, and in all ages, from the
very facts of ethnology—from the diversities of natural origin.
In this sense, then, a certain element of nationality is not
only admissible in religion, but inevitable; and the existence
of “Gallicanism,” properly so called, is no surprising pheno-
menon. Gallicanism is (or, to speak more accurately, was) the
Christianity of the French people. It may be expected, then,
à priori, to exhibit traits corresponding with the idiosyncracy of
that noble race; features reflecting and illustrating its cha-
racteristic self-reliance, its love of liberty, its impatience of
foreign domination, its reverence for traditional authority and
time-honoured usage. -
Thus the question of Nationalism in religion resolves itself into
one of degree and detail. The principle is legitimate within
certain limits; but what are those limits 2 -
Manifestly they must be so defined as to leave intact the
field of essential theological doctrine. Within that sacred area
there is no scope for Nationalism. Peculiarities which touch
the foundations of the Faith—the Catholic tradition of all ages
—the “quod Semper, quod ubique, quod ab Omnibus,”—such
peculiarities are well-nigh synonymous with heresies. To say
that the tenets known as “Gallican” are not of this complexion
may seem almost superfluous; yet such is the predominant tone
of thought and feeling in the Roman Communion of our day,
that the statement is not altogether uncalled for. It is notorious
that the profession of Gallican opinions is now, and has long
been, treated in certain quarters as if it were all but equivalent
to a denial of the Faith. What, however, is the real character
of those opinions? They belong to the domain of ecclesiastical
polity; relating chiefly to the nature and extent of the authority
vested in the Apostolic See, and in the individual person of its
Bishop. They may be said, also, to comprehend many collateral
issues, radiating from this central point—issues affecting juris-
prudence, legislation, discipline; the status and rights of the
Episcopal Order in general; the legitimate terms of alliance
between a National Church and a Christian State.
Now these are questions, doubtless, of considerable magni-
tude; but they are not of fundamental or indispensable moment.
INTROD. GENERAL CHARACTER OF GALLICANISM. 3
They are not questions de fide.” The systematic exaggeration
of their importance by the extreme partisans of Rome is one of
the most unfortunate features of modern controversy. It is
difficult to see how the cause of religion can be served by in-
sisting on the dogma of Papal absolutism as if it were the
corner-stone of the whole Christian fabric—the “articulus stantis
vel cadentis Ecclesiae.” Such a theory clashes with incontestable
facts. If this be an article of necessary faith, how is it that it
has never been imposed upon the conscience of Christendom by
the authority of any one undisputed CEcumenical Council ºf How
is it that no such definition is to be found among the decrees of
Trent 2 How is it that those who reject it have never in any age
been branded with the anathemas incurred by formal heresy P
The champions of Gallicalism are scarce in the nineteenth
century; but in days bygone, when it was first attempted to in-
troduce the system now so well known as that of the Roman
Curia, they exhibited no lack of energy and ardour. Collisions
were inevitable ; and the thunders of the fray, on certain
memorable occasions, reverberated through the very heart of
Christendom. It is satisfactory to reflect, however, on looking
down the vista of ages, that the truths so strenuously contended
* This is acknowledged by no less
an authority than Cardinal Du Perron,
in his reply to James I. of England,
as quoted by Bossuet, Def. Declarat.
Cler. Gallic., Praev. Dissert. lxxxix.
“Quæstio de auctoritate Papae inter
Catholicos agitata, sive in spiritualibus
respectu Conciliorum CEcumenicorum,
sive in temporalibus respectu juris-
dictionum saecularium, quatemus Saluti
animarum obsunt, non est quaestio
ejusmodi quae res complectatur, ab
alteruträ, parte inter articulos fidei re-
censitas, aut ab eis exigatur qui ad
Ecclesiam redeant, ita ut alii alios pro
haereticis habeant, aut a se mutilo
quoad communionis vinculum separen-
tur. Quare ea omnia communioni eccle-
siasticae Sarciendae impedimento esse
non possunt, cium ejus conditionis sint,
ut quamounque partem Rex Seremissi-
mus amplectatur, haud et Secius ab
utrāque parte jus et momen Catholici
obtineat.” -
# The Council of Florence, as the
reader need scarcely be reminded, is not
“undisputed.” It was never received
by the Church of France. Moreover,
the famous degree of that assembly by
no means establishes the modern doc-
trine of Papal autocracy, though it is
perpetually cited for that purpose. The
power of governing the universal
Church, there attributed to the Pope,
is carefully limited by the words which
follow — words which were inserted
because the Eastern bishops would not
subscribe the decree without them :
Ka8' 8v Tpótrov kal év Tots trpaktikoſs rôy
oikovuevuków avvööov Ical éu Tois ispoſs
ſcavógt ötaxapºdvetal. “In that manner
which is laid down both in the acts of
the CEcumenical Councils and in the
Sacred canons.” This inconvenient
clause has been garbled in the Latin
version by certain critics, who, by the
slight change of et into etiam, contrive
to make it imply precisely the reverse
of what was intended. The trick has
been repeatedly exposed; see especially
J. de Launoi, Epistola ad Christoph.
Fauvayum, Epp. P. 1" p. 348. Another
favourite device is to quote the first
part of the decree, Suppressing this
most significant paragraph altogether.
B 2
4. THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
for by the far-famed school of Gallican divines were maintained
without any open breach of Catholic communion or dereliction
of the Rule of Faith. Nor, although the current may seem to .
have set in an opposite direction in the Latin Church of our own
and one or two preceding generations, is there any cause for
apprehension as to the enduring vitality of their theology.
Principles which have survived the desolations of the great
Calvinist schism, the corroding ulcer of Jansenism, and the
hurricane of an infidel Revolution, can Scarcely have much to
fear from the ravages of time.
II.
The Gallican Church, from the very dawn of its history,
cordially recognized the primacy, and in a certain sense the
supremacy, of Rome among the Episcopal Sees of Christendom.
It was to Eleutherus, Bishop of Rome, that the Martyrs of Lyons
addressed a celebrated letter, appealing to him for aid in con-
futing the heresy of Montanus.” The bearer of that letter was
Irenaeus, then a Presbyter, afterwards Bishop of Lyons, and one
of the brightest luminaries of the early Church in Gaul. From
a much-contested passage in the treatise of this father “Against
heresies” we may at least infer (after making every allowance
for the imperfect state in which the work has come down to us)
that he regarded the Roman See—“that greatest and most
ancient Church founded by the two glorious Apostles, Peter
and Paul”—with deep reverence and honour, both on account
of its pre-eminent dignity, and on account of the fidelity with
which it had preserved and handed down the Divine Deposit
through twelve successive episcopates.f Similar conclusions
* Euseb., H. E., Lib. v. 4, 5. Longue-
val, Hist. de l'Egl. Gallic., tom. i. p. 19.
f Iren., Contr. Hæres., III. cap. 3.
§ 2. The greater part of the original
text of Irenaeus being lost, we are
dependent on an uncouth and possibly
inaccurate Latin translation. Under
these circumstances such expressions
as “propter potiorem (or potentiorem)
principalitatem,” and “ad hanc eccle-
siam necesse est omnem convenire eccle-
siam,” lie fairly open to criticism.
Accordingly, Irenaeus is confidently
claimed on One side as an asserter of
the absolute monarchy of the Roman
Pontiff over the universal Church ;
While on the other his meaning is
jealously minimised into a mere ac-
knowledgment of Rome as a Church
of the highest antiquity and Apostolic
foundation. Fénélon (De summi Ponti-
ficis auctoritate, cap. 10) adopts a middle
course, and understands the passage to
imply the indefectibility of Rome in
holding fast the deposit of faith. Such,
too, is Bossuet's view (Defen. Declarat,
P. III., Lib. x. c. 6.) In bis Serm. “Sur
l’Unité de l'Eglise,” however, he trans-
lates the word “convenire” by “sac-
corder.” “C'est avec cette Eglise que
toutes les Eglises et tous les fideles qui
Sont par toute laterre doivent s'accorder,
INTROD. APPEALS TO ROME. 5
may be drawn from the proceedings of the First Council of
Arles (A.D. 314). The fathers there assembled transmitted
their canons with profound respect to Pope Sylvester, in order
that (as they express it in their synodical epistle) “by him, who
presided over the greater dioceses, they might be notified to the
Christian world.”” At the same time it is evident, both from
their words and acts, that they considered the Council to possess
inherently all necessary power of legislation, apart from any
exercise of authority on the part of the Roman Pontiff.
The all-important principle of appeal to the Apostolic See in
the “causae majores”—the pivot, as it proved eventually, of the
whole system of Papal domination—began to prevail in Gaul in
the early part of the fifth century. Mention is made of it
in a decretal epistle of Pope Innocent I. to Victricius, Bishop of
Rouen, A.D. 404. In reply to certain enquiries of that prelate
on matters of discipline, the Pope directs, among other things,
that ecclesiastical causes shall be judged, according to the
canons of Nicaea, by the Provincial Council, and that none shall
be permitted to decline its jurisdiction in order to seek justice
elsewhere;—“without prejudice,” he adds, “to the rights of the
Roman Church, for which in all proceedings due respect must be
observed. If greater causes should arise, they must be reserved,
after the sentence of the bishops has been pronounced, to the
à cause de Sa principale et excellente omnibus insinuari.” This Council of
principauté.”—CEuvres, tom. xv. p. 521.
For the Protestant interpretation, see
David Blondel, Traité de la Primauté
en l'Eglise, p. 17 et seq. This locus
vexatus is certainly capable of more
than one construction as to doctrine ;
but its general Sense as illustrating a
historical fact is, I conceive, sufficiently
obvious. The recent version in the
“Ante-Nicene Library "renders it thus:
“It is a matter of necessity that every
Church should agree with this Church,
on account of its pre-eminent au-
thority.” There is now little doubt
among Scholars that the original read-
ing of this latter phrase was 61& Thu
6tapopotépau äpx?iv.
* “Dilectissimo Papae Silvestro. Ad
Arelatensem civitatem piissimi Impera-
toris voluntate adducti, inde te, glorio-
sissime Papa, commerità roverentia. Sa-
lutamus. Placuit enim a te, qui majores
Dioeceses tenes, ct per te potissimum
Arles was attended by bishops from all
parts of the Latin Church, and was
virtually a General Council of the West.
The phrase “majores dioeceses" pro-
bably refers to the greater number and
extent of the “dioceses" (i. e. the pºli-
tical divisions of the empire, so called)
contained in the Patriarchate of Rome, as
compared with those of the East. Seven
“dioceses,” if not more, were subject to
the Roman jurisdiction (De Marca, De
Concord, Lib. v. c. 19). F. Longueval
(Hist.’ de l'Egl. Gallic., tom. ii. p. 184)
concurs in regarding the language of
this Council as amounting to a recogni-
tion of Sylvester as patriarch of the
West. Whether these territorial details
had been precisely arranged at that
early date is perhaps questionable; but
in any case we have here sufficient
proof of the high position and pre-
rogative assigned even then to the see
of St. Peter. -
6 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. INTROD.
Holy See, in pursuance of the injunctions of the Council.”
Not many years afterwards we meet with a remarkable in-
stance of appeal to Rome on the part of a Gallican bishop, the
results of which went far to settle the usage of the Western
Church in this particular.
A dispute of long standing existed between the bishops of
Arles and Vienne with regard to precedency and metropolitical
jurisdiction. The question was brought before a Council at Turin
in the year 401, when it was decided, for the sake of peace, that
the dignity of metropolitan should belong to that prelate who
could prove his see to be the civil capital of the province; and
that, meanwhile, each should execute the office in the dioceses
nearest to his own. The strife was thus suspended for the time;
but in 417 Patroclus, Bishop of Arles, addressed himself to Pope
Zosimus, to obtain restitution of the rights which he maintained
to be originally inherent in his see ; and that Pontiff, probably
without sufficient examination, granted his request. He wrote
to the bishops of Gaul, directing that the Bishop of Arles should
exercise metropolitanjurisdiction over three provinces, Viennensis
and 1" and 2* Narbonensis; that he should preside at the con-
secration of their bishops; that all clergy travelling abroad
should obtain from him “litteræ formatae,” or commendatory
letters; and that he should decide ecclesiastical causes, with the
exception of those which were important enough to be reserved
to the cognizance of the Pope himself. : These distinctions
he declared to rest upon the Apostolic foundation of the See;
Trophimus having been despatched from Rome to be the first
Bishop of Arles, and the Christian faith having been diffused
from that Original source throughout Gaul."
* Innoc., Epist. ad Victric. Rotomag.
ap. Sirmond, Comc. Antiq. Gall., tom. i.
p. 30. Longueval, Hist. de l'Egl. Gallic.,
tom. ii. p. 47. By “the Council,” In-
nocent means that of Sardica, A.D. 347;
which, as is well known, laid down the
earliest regulations as to the practice
of appealing to the Roman See. The
canons of Sardica Were frequently con-
founded with those of Nicaea, the one
Council being regarded as the con-
tinuation of the other. Cf. Ballerin., Ap-
pend. ad. S. Leon. Opp, Pt. JI p. 57.
f Labbe, Concil., tom. ii. p. 1155;
Sirmond, Concil. Amt. Gall, tom, i. p. 27.
| Sirmond, Comc. Amt. Gall., tom. i.
p. 42. De Marca, De Concord., Lib. v.
cap. 30 S 5. Fleury, H. E., Liv. xxiii.
§ 45.
§ Zosim., Ep. ad universos Episcopos
Gallias. “Jussimus praecipuam, sicuti
Semperhabuit, Metropolitanus episcopus
Arelatensium civitatis in ordinandis
Sacerdotibus teneat auctoritatem . . .
Metropolitanae Arelatensium urbi vetus
privilegium minimè derogandum est, ad
quam primum ex hac sede Trophimus
summus Antistes, ex cujus fonte tota
Gallia fidei rivulos acceperulºt, directus
est.” The date of the mission of Tro-
INTROD. S. LEO AND S, HILARY OF ARLES. 7
But this judgment by no means put an end to the dispute.
The very complicated case of Hilary, Bishop of Arles, during
the Pontificate of Leo the Great, reopened the whole question;
and all parties interested recurred repeatedly to Rome. Hilary
was accused to the Pope of assuming primatial authority over
the whole Gallic Church, and in particular, of having un-
lawfully deposed Celidonius, apparently a bishop of the pro-
vince of Vienne. Celidonius appealed to the Pope; and Hilary
ſimself proceeded forthwith to Rome, where he demeaned
himself towards his Superior in a Somewhat arrogant and un-
becoming style. Leo assembled his Council, reversed Hilary's
judgment, and reinstated Celidonius, who seems to have been
innocent of the offence imputed to him. Hence we may
infer that the regulations of the Council of Sardica on appeals
were at this period either unrecognized or very imperfectly
observed.* Had they been in full operation, Hilary would not
have been justified on his part in complaining of Celidonius
phimus to Gaul, and of the foundation
of the see of Arles, has been the subject
of much controversy. Pope Zosimus
does not expressly identify him with
the Trophimus of Scripture; and al-
though the bishops of the province of
Arles, in their epistle to Pope Leo,
(Conc. Antiq. Gall., tom. i. p. 89), state
that S. Trophimus was sent to Gaul
“by the most blessed apostle St. Peter,”
this need not mean more than that he,
was sent by the authority of the bishop
of Rome, St. Peter's successor. Later,
however, in the same epistle, they Say
distinctly that Trophimus was sent
“by the Apostles.” De Marca, in his
“Epist. ad. Henricum Walesium ” (De
Concord., tom. iv.), contends for the
Apostolic institution of the see; but the
opposite opinion is ably maintained by
De Launoi, in his “Dispunctio Epistolæ
de tempore quo primum in Galliis sus-
cepta est Christifides” (Opusc., tom.V.).
The latter view rests chiefly on the
testimony of S. Gregory of Tours, ac-
cording to whom Trophimus was one
of a band of missionaries sent to Gaul
by Pope Fabian, in the consulate of
Decius, A.D. 250. This is far the more
probable account. Tillemont and Bal-
lerini consider that Zosimus was im-
posed upon by Patroclus and others in
his interest, who invented the story of
the Apostolic mission of Trophimus for
the purpose of Supporting the high-
flown pretensions of the See of Arles.
* F. Quesnel (Dissert. W. Apol. pro
S. Hilario, S. Leon., Opp., tom. ii. p.
833, argues that the Gallican Church,
following the example of the African
and the Eastern churches, did not
receive the canons of the Council of
Sardica. Had those canons formed part
of the Gallican code, Pope Leo, he
remarks, would certainly have referred
to them on the present occasion, since
the right of Celidonius to appeal to
the Roman See would thus be estab-
lished beyond dispute. Quesnel’s ob-
ject, of course, is to show that the ap-
pellate jurisdiction of Rome was un-
known to antiquity, and that the
assumption of such power was resisted
with special vigour in Gaul. But it
would appear that the tradition of
the Church had to some GXtent estab-
lished that prerogative antecedently
to any positive enactment of statute
law. It was looked upon as an in-
herent attribute of the primacy of
the bishop of Rome as successor of St.
Peter. St. Leo speaks of it, in his
celebrated Epistle to the bishops of
the province of Vienne, as an ancient
custom, a standing rule of the Church,
for the purpose of preserving the bond
of Christian charity, and uniformity of
ecclesiastical discipline. “Nobiscum
8 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
for carrying his suit to Rome, nor, on the other hand, could the
Pope have adjudicated the cause without previously referring it
to a Commission on the spot for a second examination. Leo,
however, was not content with rescinding Hilary's decision ; he
visited him with severe censure, deprived him of the Primacy
granted to his predecessor,” declared him to be severed from the
communion of the Holy See, and intimated that it was a matter
of favour that he was not deposed from his office. It was on
this occasion, too, that the Pontiff procured from Valentinian III.
an edict affirming his supremacy in the government of the Church,
forbidding the bishops, whether in Gaul or other provinces, to
vary from ancient custom without his permission, and enjoining
his officers, civil and military, to enforce submission to the Pope
in case of need. }
The question between Arles and Vienne was decided by Pope
vestra fraternitas recognoscat, Apos-
tolicam Sedem pro sui reverentiá, a
vestrae etiam provinciae Sacerdotibus
innumeris relationibus esse consultam,
et per diversarum, quemadmodum
vetus consuetudo poscebat, appella-
tiones causarum aut retractata aut
confirmata esse judicia; adeo ut ser-
vatā unitate spiritus in Vinculo pacis,
commeantibus hinc inde litteris, quod
sanctè agebatur perpetua proficeret
caritati.” There was no need for him
to quote the Sardican canons (especially
as he had not acted in accordance with
them), when he could appeal to the
fact that these very bishops and their
predecessors had been constantly accus-
tomed to address themselves to the
Holy See in matters requiring final
arbitration, That the canons in ques-
tion, if not known to the Gallican
Church of that age, were subsequently
not only received, but zealously insisted
on, in France, is acknowledged on all
hands.
* This seems to have been previously
revoked by Pope Boniface. “Cum et
ipsum quod Patroclo à Sede Apostolică
temporaliter widebatur esse concessum,
postmodium sit sententiã meliore subla-
tum” (S. Leon., Epist. X. cap. 4).
f S. Leon., Epist. X. cap. 7, Ad Episc.
Provinc. Vienn. The phrase “Exsors
Apostolicæ communionis” probably
refers not to any sentence of excom-
munication, but to Hilary's clandestine
flight from Rome, by which he had
shut himself out from participation in
the religious rites and synodal acts of
his brother prelates. -
† Constitutio Valentiniani III. Au-
gusti, De Episcoporum ordinatione.—S.
Leon., Opp., tom. i. p. 642. It is ad-
dressed to the patrician Aetius, com-
mander of the troops in Gaul. It states
that Hilary, called Bishop of Arles,
had rashly usurped the power of judging
and ordaining bishops without con-
sulting the Roman Pontiff. Some he
had illegally removed, others he had
ordained against the Will of the citi-
Zens. Sentence had been passed against
him by the Pope, and that sentence
would be valid even without confirma-
tion by the Emperor. “Quid enim
tanti Pontificis auctoritati in ecclesiis
non liceret !” But lest Hilary, or any
one else, should venture to offend again
in like manner, he decrees, as a per-
petual rule that neither the bishops
of Gaul nor of other provinces shall
attempt any innovation upon ancient
Custom without the sanction of the
“venerable Pope of the Eternal City.” .
“Hoc illis Omnibusque pro lege sit,
quidquid Sanxit vel Sanxerit Apos-
tolicæ Sedis auctoritas; ita ut quisquis
Episcoporum ad judicium Romani An-
tistitis evocatus venire neglexerit, per
Moderatorem ejusdem provincia, adesse
Cogatur.”
INTROD. DECISION BETWEEN ARLES AND WIENNE. 9
Leo in the year 449. He observes, in reply to a memorial from
the bishops of the province of Vienne, that the two Sees had
enjoyed precedence alternately; special privileges having been
conferred sometimes on the one, sometimes on the other. For
this reason he judged it right to make a division of the contested
jurisdiction. He assigns to the Bishop of Vienne the four neigh-
bouring dioceses of Valence, Tarantaise, Geneva, and Grenoble;
the remaining sees of the same province being placed under the
authority of the Bishop of Arles.” Subsequent Pontiffs, however,
conferred various important prerogatives on the Metropolitans
of Arles. They were appointed Vicars and Legates of the Holy
See ; invested with the pallium as the symbol of that office; and
empowered to convoke and preside at Councils throughout Gaul.
St. Caesarius was the first who received the distinction of the
pallium. Pope Symmachus confirmed to him at the same time
(A.D. 513) all the privileges belonging to his See and exercised
by his predecessors, and even extended his jurisdiction into
Spain. -
from the time of Leo the Great the Popes may be said to
have possessed a generally acknowledged patriarchal authority
throughout the Gallic Church. Nor does it appear that the
administration of the Roman Patriarch, in the form established
in those early ages, was on the whole inconsistent with the
legitimate principles of Church Government. On the contrary,
it tended materially to the maintenance of unity and discipline
in times of great political disorder and social danger. The Pope
was universally admitted to be the first bishop of Christendom ;
but his government was that of a constitutional, not of an
absolute, monarch. His Patriarchal dignity was held in com-
mon with that of four other Patriarchs, and was not as yet
developed into a Primacy of universal jurisdiction. He did
not claim to be the sole source of ecclesiastical legislation;
he did not pretend to be independent of Councils and canons.
The Popes of those days were in the habit of reiterating on
all occasions, and with every variety of expression, the fact
that they were the guardians of the statute law of the Church;
that they had no power to alter or abrogate those statutes;
* S. Leon, Epist. lxvi. (al. 1.), tom. i. 187; Thomassin, Vet. et Nov, Eccles.
p. 998. Discip., I. Lib. ii. cap. 54.
+ Sirmond, Conc. Amt. Gall., tom. i. p.
10 THE GALLICAN CHURCH, INTROD.
that it was the peculiar characteristic and glory of the Roman
See to maintain inviolate the tradition of antiquity and the
canonical decrees of Councils. A great Gallican doctor, Jean
de Launoi, has taken the pains to collect a series of sixty-
three declarations to this effect from the writings of different
Popes; in which they acknowledge themselves to be bound, by
special obligations, to conform personally to the legislation of the
Church, and to enforce its authority throughout the Christian
world.* The same principle is further illustrated, with singular
force, by the “Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum,’t which
contains the formulas by which the Popes of all ages have en-
gaged, at their inauguration, to observe to the very letter (w8que
* Launoi, Epistol. Pars iii. Ep. ad
Thomam Rullandum.
+ The “Liber Diurnus’ is a collec-
tion of official formularies relating to
points of ecclesiastical discipline and
administration, anciently in use in the
Roman Chancery. It appears from
internal and external evidence to date
from the end of the 7th century. In
the course of ages it became obsolete,
and fell into oblivion, insomuch that
Antonio Augustin, the great Spanish
canonist in the 16th century, was not
aware of its existence. At length a
MS. copy was discovered by Luke Hol-
stein, afterwards librarian of the Vati-
can, in the church of Sta. Croce di
Gerusalemme at Rome, about the year
1645. Holstein collated it with a second
MS. belonging to the library of the
Collége de Clermont at Paris, and pre-
pared an edition for publication; but
the Papal censors of the press declined,
on various pretexts, to grant the re-
quisite permission, Holstein died in
I661, and nothing more was heard of
the Liber Diurnus till 1680, when it
suddenly made its appearance in print
under the auspices of Father Garnier,
a learned Jesuit of Paris, librarian of
the Collége de Clermont. This step
gave umbrage at Rome, and Garnier
was summoned thither to account for
his conduct; but he died during the
journey, at Bologna, in October, 1681.
The obnoxious volume narrowly es-
caped being put upon the Index, and
copies of it became extremely rare.
During the Pontificate of Benedict
XIII., however, the susceptibilities of
the Roman court as to certain facts
referred to in the Liber Diurnus under-
went considerable abatement; and in
1724 it was reprinted from the edition
of Garnier, though with such precau-
tions as effectually prevented its getting
into general circulation. Since then
it has often reappeared in learned col-
lections; but the most complete edition
is that recently published at Paris by
M. Eugéne de Rozière, Inspecteur-Géné-
ral des Archives. The editor has pre-
fixed a most interesting Introduction,
to which I am indebted for the fore-
going details.
The reader to whom this story is
new will be curious to learn why the
court of Rome should have taken so
much pains to hinder the Liber Diurnus
from Seeing the light. The following
seems to be the true explanation:—
Among the documents contained in
the Volume, perhaps the most important
is the “Professio Romani Pontificis,”
or Solemn declaration of faith made by
the Popes at their enthronization.
Three forms of it are preserved; in
One of which, the second, mention is
made of Pope Honorius, who, as is well
known, was denounced as a heretic by
the Sixth General Council for his weak
complicity with the Monothelites. The
occurrence of this awkward passage
in the Professio is quite sufficient to
account for the reluctance of the au-
thorities at Rome to sanction its publi-
cation to the World. Cardinal Bona,
to whom the work was submitted for
examination, candidly gave this as his
reason for recommending that Hol-
Stein's edition should be suppressed,
“Cium in professione electi Pontificis
INTROD. TEIE *LIBER DIURNUS.” 11
ad unum apicem) the decrees of the CEcumenical Councils; to
affirm and teach whatever the Church in her legislative assem-
blies has affirmed and taught; to condemn and reject whatever
has been synodically condemned and rejected by the same autho-
rity.” That any Pope should deliberately violate or set aside the
enactments of general Councils was a contingency scarcely con-
templated by the ancient Church. For such enactments were
presumed to be made under the immediate sanction and direction
of the Roman Patriarch; so that, in opposing them, he would
be resisting and annulling his own acts.
It was only in proportion as these grave truths began to be
forgotten in the rapid aggrandizement which was almost thrust
upon the Papacy after the fall of the Carlovingian Empire, that
National Churches found it necessary to recur to the provisions
of immemorial discipline, and to insist on the observance of their
ancient “liberties.”
Ecclesiastical “liberty” is a phrase which has become in great
damnetur Honorius Papa ideo quia
pravis haereticorum assertionibus fo-
mentum impendit, si verba delineata
sint were in autographo, nec ex notis
apparere possit quomodo huic vulneri
medelam afferat, præstat non divulgari
opus.” Father Sirmond agreed with
him in opinion. (See De Rozière, In-
troduction, p. 113.)
The case of Honorius must always
be one of crucial difficulty to those who
are committed to the extreme ultra-
montane dogma of the personal infalli-
bility of the Pope. Human ingenuity
has been taxed to the utmost to elude
the verdict of history upon the point,
but in vain. It has been asserted by
various advocates (1), that the acts of
the Council were falsified; (2), that
the judgment of the Council was mis-
taken; (3), that Honorius misunder-
stood the question at issue, and that
his opinion was Orthodox, though irrele-
vant to the controversy; (4), that in
his letters to Sergius he was speaking
not ea Cathedrá, but only as a private
theologian ; (5), that although justly
condemned, he was not condemned for
heresy, but only for giving countenance
to heretics. These are pleas which
have been often and unanswerably re-
futed. But although the fall of Ho-
norius is fatal to the claim of per-
Sonal infallibility, it concludes nothing
against that advanced by Bossuet and
other Gallican divines, namely, that
the See of St. Peter is indefectible in
preserving and transmitting the deposit
of faith. According to them a marked
distinction must be observed between
the Roman See and the individual who
occupies it. An individual Pope may
err, but the taint will be transient,
and can never take permanent root in
the Apostolic See ; the “faith of Peter’’
will unfailingly survive to the end of
time, by virtue of Christ's promise that
the gates of hell shall not prevail
against His Church.
* “Sancta, Universalia Concilia, Ni-
canum, Constantinopolitanum, Ephe-
Sinum primum, &c., usque ad unum
apicem immutilata servare; quaeque
praedicaverunt, praedicare, quaeque con-
demnaverunt, Ore et corde condemnare.
Diligentius autem et vivacius, quamdiu
vixero, omnia decreta canonica præde-
cessorum mostrorum Pontificum, quae-
cunque ipsi Synodaliter statuerunt, et
probata Sunt, confirmare et indiminuta
servare, et sicut ab eis statuta sunt, in
Sui vigoris stabilitate custodire; quae-
que wel quoscumque condemnaverunt
vel abdicaverunt simili sententiã con-
demnare vel abdicare.” This “Pro-
fessio’’ is inserted in Gratian’s De-
Gretum, Dist. xvi. c. 8. It is also twice
quoted by Ivo of Chartres.
12 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
measure identified with the history of the Church in France;
but it must be observed that, in the claims originally advanced
in that behalf, there was nothing peculiar to any single member
of the Christian Commonwealth. All that was demanded was
this; that the constitutional charter — the “common law”—
of the Church should be obeyed in practice.* Freedom of
episcopal election; the unshackled exercise of metropolitical
jurisdiction; the regular celebration of Councils, especially of
Provincial Councils; the administration of discipline through
the ecclesiastical courts, unimpeded either by the arbitrary con-
trol of the State or by the indefinite multiplication of appeals to
Rome; —such were the franchises windicated by Gallican theolo-
gians; not, however, as belonging exclusively to France, but as
component parts of that Divinely-bequeathed heritage which is
the property of the Church universal. The selfsame objects were
anxiously pursued in other quarters of the Christian world; but
nowhere was the resistance to innovation so steadily sustained,
so discriminating, or on the whole so successful, as in France.
Hence the special significance of the term “liberty” as applied
to the Gallican branch of the Church Catholic.f. Other nations
of Europe fell into excesses in opposite directions; excesses
either of blind abject submission to the Papal autocracy, as in
Italy and Spain; or of rebellion ending in the disruption of visible
unity, as in Germany and England. The tone maintained in
France was for the most part dignified, temperate, respectful;
combining a resolute assertion of the principles both of civil and
ecclesiastical freedom, with profound devotion to the Patriarchal
See of the West, and with obedience to its occupants in all
things lawfully enjoined.
Thus the distinctive truths illustrated by the Gallican Church
of former days were principally these :-that a National Church,
while following the broad track of Latin tradition as to the
primacy of the “Cathedra Petri,” may witness at the same time
to the co-ordinate power of government which resides by Divine
* “Nativas Ecclesiae Catholicæ liber-
tates, sive jus commune à Deo ot na-
tură institutum.”—Rdm. Richer, De
Eccles, et Polit. Potestate, cap. 13. Cf.
De Marca, De Concord. Sac. et Imp.,
Lib. iii, cap. 1, § 7.
f “Debilitatá in caeteris regnis canon-
um auctoritate, ut significaretur apud
noS aliquam partem canonicae libertatis
retineri, libertatis Ecclesiae Gallicanae
speciale nomen inductum est.”—— De
Marca, De Concord. ubi supra.
INTROD. PERVERSION OF GALLICAN LIBERTY. 13
right in the whole Episcopal college; that the Canon Law, not
the will of a personally infallible Pontiff, is the standard of the
Church's jurisprudence; that it is possible to hold the doctrinal
creed committed to the Church from the beginning, without
acquiescing in Roman usurpations in other departments of the
ecclesiastical economy;-in short, that, in order to be Catholic,
it is not absolutely necessary to be Ultramontane.
It cannot be denied, however, that Gallicanism may be con-
templated from a very different and far less advantageous point
of view. The position occupied by France in regard to the
Papacy was not devoid of serious countervailing drawbacks. The
Gallican Church freed itself, to a certain extent, from the tyran-
nical yoke of Rome; but this partial emancipation was pur-
chased only at the price of momentous concessions to the State.
“Gallican liberty”—if it signified that constitutional autonomy
which is the birthright of the Church Catholic, was indeed
worth any sacrifice; but what if liberty should be craftily trans-
formed into servitude” by the domineering action of the civil
power P The Pope, though he might sometimes make an
oppressive and mistaken use of his prerogatives, was neverthe-
less the chief Pastor of the Church—one whose spiritual character
and Divine commission could not be disputed. But in pro-
portion as attempts were made to repress the exorbitant pre-
tensions of ambitious Pontiffs, the door was opened for intrusion
on the part of another Element, which, although sovereign in
things temporal, possessed no spiritual authority or jurisdiction
whatever. .
Hence arose an arduous struggle, which was prolonged for
centuries, if indeed it can be said even now to be finally decided.
Its general result is written on the face of history too plainly to
be mistaken. Whatever was wrested from the Pope was appro-
priated by the Crown. So that, in process of time, while stoutly
protesting against any recognition of Pontifical Supremacy in
things temporal, the French Church found itself reduced to the
anomalous necessity of accepting the Royal Supremacy in many
things intrinsically spiritual.
Under such circumstances, it is not to be wondered at that
* “Servitutes potius quâm libertates.” . See the letter of the Gallican bishops
in 1639–Procès-verbawa, &c., tom, iii., Pièces justificatives, No. 1.
14 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. INTROD.
the phrase “Gallican liberty” has become ambiguous, and is
used in two different acceptations. In its primary and genuine
sense it implies the right of the Gallican Church (as of all
national churches) to administer its own government within cer-
tain limits—those limits being determined by the canons of
Councils and the practice of the purest ages of antiquity. But
the same term was applied, in later times, to the assumptions
of the State in matters extraneous to its proper province, under
pretence of maintaining national independence as against the
usurpations of the Papacy. Ultramontane controversialists are
glad to avail themselves of this convenient équivoque. They
studiously ignore the ancient, unadulterated Gallicanism, and
seek to persuade us that the system known by that name was
fabricated by a royal despot and his sycophant bishops towards
the close of the seventeenth century. They confound the abuses
which arose from the absolutism of the Crown with that primi-
tive organization which in all ages has confronted the absolutism
of Rome.
Against this artifice the reader will do well to be on his guard.
We hear it loudly proclaimed in these days that Gallicanism is
the base-born offspring of a degenerate age—a “Schism in dis-
guise "—an outbreak of the spirit of insubordination—inco-
herent, illogical. The reply to such assertions is best made by
distinguishing between the apocryphal version of it which was
imposed upon the world by despotic monarchs, arrogant ministers,
and obsequious parliaments, and that pure theological tradition
which was coeval with the Church of France. Gallicanism (in
its true sense) does not date from the “age of Louis XIV.” It
did not originate with the “Declaration” of 1682. It was not
created by the Concordat of Francis I. It was not first formu-
lated in the “Pragmatic Sanction” of Bourges. Nor was it even
a happy invention of the illustrious Jean Gerson and those other
kindred spirits who piloted the Church with such consummate
skill through the shoals and quicksands of the “Great Schism.” It
sounds like a truism to say so, but the truism is necessary—the
Gallican Church was always Gallican. It was not, indeed, i
always in an attitude of active protest against the supremacy
of the Roman Pontiff; for that supremacy, rightly understood
and administered, is an integral part of the Gallican polity.
But it asserted from the beginning those great laws and prin-
}
INTROD. ANCIENT AND MODERN GALLICANISM. 15
ciples, the infraction of which in later times led to the diver-
gence between the old and the new ecclesiastical discipline. If
Gallicans began at a certain period to dissent from Rome, it was
because Rome at that period had become other than she was.
Ultramontanism, not Gallicanism, was the innovation. The
Papacy, in the shape which it now wears, is only defensible on
the plea that the original laws of the Christian kingdom are
subject to development—or rather transformation—according to
the presumed needs of successive ages. Gallicanism is a per-
petual appeal to those same laws before the evolutionary process
commenced. In other words, it is an appeal to the judgment
and practice of the primitive Church. But there are those who
would fain identify it with a system by which, in comparatively
recent times, the Church was robbed of her dearest prero-
gatives; by which the free election of her bishops was abrogated,
the voice of her Legislative Councils silenced, her judicial and
disciplinary authority annulled. This was neither genuine
Gallicanism nor genuine Christianity. According to Gallican
theology, it is no less, but rather far more, repugnant to the
spirit of the Gospel that the Church should be subjected, within
the sphere of her divinely-Ordained functions, to the arbitrary
dictation of kings and parliaments, than that she should be
ruled by the irresponsible will of her chief Bishop. The
Church’s “liberty” has always consisted, and must for ever
consist, in being governed by her own canonical legislation; in
the equitable administration of that sacred code by the Epis-
copate; and in its being frankly recognized and effectually pro-
tected by the civil power.
Once more, them, the reader is warned against the stratagem,
now so commonly practised, of representing Gallicanism as a
mere modern expedient for converting the Church into a hire-
ling and a bondslave to the State. It is true that, under the
pseudonym of Gallicanism, the ancient independence of the
Church in its relations to the State was practically subverted;
but Gallicanism is not answerable for this monstrous perversion
of its principles. “Look on this picture and on that.” Compare
the portrait drawn by Pierre Pithou at the close of the sixteenth
century with the cherished ideal of such men as Hincmar of
Reims, Ivo of Chartres, Agobard of Lyons, and Bernard of
Clairvaux. The one is a caricature of the other. The great
16 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
mediaeval doctors rest their cause on principles which date from
the very foundation of the “City of God,” and which are there-
fore opposed alike to Papal and to secular Caesarism. The
modern programme is virtually an abnegation of the most impor-
tant of those principles, forced upon the Church by the unscru-
pulous aggressions of the State.
The gradual metamorphosis of the Gallicanism of the primitive
type into the hybrid system which latterly usurped its name—
and which was not far removed from sheer Erastianism—is to be
traced amid the vicissitudes of many centuries. Some account
of it will be attempted in the course of the present work. The
author does not pretend, however, to furnish a complete expla-
nation of a series of transactions which, in many instances, were
carefully masked under a veil of plausible deception, and which
have been involved in further obscurity by conflicting historical
testimony. There are problems connected with the fortunes of
the Church in France which probably will never be solved with
absolute certainty so long as the world lasts.
III.
The Church of France was distinguished for many ages by its
zeal for the independence and purity of ecclesiastical elections.
Under the first and second Frankish dynasties the Church was
the main source and principle of civilization — the dominant
power of Society. All important acts of legislation emanated
from its Councils. Its prelates were Ministers of State; its priests
were civil magistrates; justice was ordinarily dispensed through
its tribunals. Church and State were in fact so intimately
blended, as to be scarcely distinguishable the one from the other.
During this period, the right of the Church to freedom of action
in the choice of its chief pastors was fully admitted in theory;
and elections to the episcopate were made, according to primitive
usage, by the suffrages of the clergy and faithful laity of the dio-
cese; subject always to the regulations of the canons, and to the
approval of the sovereign. It is true that this practice was often
interfered with, especially under the later Merovingian princes;
but such cases were exceptions and abuses. Freedom of election
was the universally acknowledged rule, and was more or less
exactly followed until after the fall of the Carlovingian Empire.
INTROD. EARLY COUNCILS ON EPISCOPAL ELECTIONS. 17
Thus, for example, the First Council of Auvergne," A.D. 535,
expressly condemns any attempt to attain the episcopal dignity
through the favour and patronage of princes, rather than by
personal merit and the universal suffrage of the faithful. The
Fifth Council of Orleans, in 549, decrees that bishops shall be
chosen, with the consent of the king, by the votes of the clergy
and people, as enjoined by the ancient canons; and thereupon
consecrated by the Metropolitan and his comprovincials. “Let
it not be lawful for any one to obtain the episcopate by means of
bribery or simoniacal contract. Let no man be appointed bishop
over an unwilling flock; nor let any pressure be exercised by
persons in authority, to procure the consent either of citizens or
of clergy, a thing shameful to speak of. If any such case should
occur, let the bishop who has thus been ordained through
violence, rather than by legitimate decree, be for ever deposed
from the pontifical dignity.”f The Fifth Synod of Paris,
A.D. 557, enacts in its eighth canon, that the election of bishops
shall be conducted freely by the clergy and people; that no one
shall be intruded into a see by the command of the Sovereign,
or without the consent of the Metropolitan and comprovincials;
that if any one shall venture to assume the episcopal dignity in
virtue of a royal nomination, he shall not be recognized as bishop
by the prelates of the province. Again, it was declared by the
great National Synod held at Paris in 615, under Clothaire II.,
that episcopal elections made without consent of the Metro-
politan, the comprovincials, the clergy and laity of the diocese,
as also those obtained through violence, intrigue, or simony, are
absolutely null and void. The king, by an edict, confirmed this
* Concil. Arvermense I., apud Sirm.,
Comc. Antiq. Gall, tom. i. p. 242. See
also Concil. Aurelian. III., A.D. 538,
Canon 3: “Ipse Metropolitanus a com-
provincialibus episcopis, Sicut decreta
Sedis Apostolicæ continent, cum con-
sensu cleri wel civium, eligatur; quia.
aequum est, Sicut insa Sedes Apostolica
dixit, ut qui praeponendus est Omnibus,
ab omnibus eligatur. De compro-
Vincialibus verö ordinandis, cum con-
sensu Metropolitani, cleri, et civium,
juxta priorum canonum statuta, electio
et voluntas requiratur.” It was S. Leo,
in one of his epistles to the bishops of
WOL. I.
the province of Vienne, who pronounced
the celebrated dictum here referred to.
“Per pacem et quietem Sacerdotes qui
praefuturi Sunt postulentur. Teneatur
Subscriptio clericorum, honoratorum
testimonium, ordinis consensus, et ple-
bis. Qui praefuturus est omnibus, ab
omnibus eligatur.”
# Concil. Aurel. V., Canon X. Sir-
mond., Conc Antiq. Gall, tom. i. -
† Labbe, Concil., tom. v. p. 814. “Si
abs(ſue electione Metropolitani, cleri
consensu, wel civium, fuerit in ecclesiá.
intromissus, Ordinatio ipsius, secundum
Patrum statuta, irrita habeatur.”
C;
|8 | - THE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. INTROD.
canon; adding, however, a clause to the effect that the crown
was to authorise the act of consecration.*
The same rule prevailed under the Carlovingian dynasty. It
was frequently infringed, indeed, by Charlemagne, who, in virtue
of the quasi-ecclesiastical character which he assumed under the
express sanction of the Holy See,t exercised supreme control
over the whole external administration of the Church. But the
right of canonical election is explicitly affirmed by this monarch
in a capitulary of the year 803. “Being not ignorant of the
sacred canons, in order that in the name of God Holy Church
may the more freely enjoy her just privileges, we have signified
our consent to the ecclesiastical order, that bishops shall be
elected by the choice of the clergy and people, according to the
canons, from the diocese where the vacancy occurs, without
respect of persons or gift of presents, on the sole ground of
meritorious life and pre-eminent wisdom.”f This capitulary was
republished verbatim by Louis le Debonnaire soon after his acces-
sion. In process of time it became customary to solicit from
the crown permission to proceed to an election; and an officer,
called the Visitor, usually one of the bishops of the province,
was appointed to preside over the proceedings, and make a
report on the event to the Metropolitan; the latter, in his turn,
giving information to the king. If the Visitor reported that the
election had been misconducted—that there had been bribery,
simony, violence, or the like—the nomination became void, and
the patronage, for that time, devolved upon the crown.|
The way was thus opened for a further extension of the royal
prerogative with respect to the disposal of the highest ecclesias-
tical dignities. It appears that, under the later Carlovingians,
the practice of applying to the crown for license to elect led to
that of royal recommendations of the individual to be elected.
Persons in office about the court, the relatives of the nobility, of
* “Si persona condignal fuerit, per
ordinationem Principis ordinetur.”—
Labbe, Concil., tom. v. p. 1649. Cf.
Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles. Discip.,
TI., Lib. ii, cap. 13.
f Charlemagne often describes him-
self in his Capitularies as “devotus
sanctæ Ecclesiae defensor, atque adjutor
in omnibus Apostolicæ sedis.”
# Baluz., Capit. Reg. Franc., tom. i.
p. 379. This capitulary is inserted in
the Decretum of Gratian, Dist. lxiii.
cap. 34, Sacrorum.
§ A.D. 816. Sirmond, Conc. Antiq. Gal-
lèze, tom. ii. p. 429.
| Thomassin, Vet. et Nov.
Discip., II. Lib. ii. cap. 21, § 9.
JEccles.
INTROD. CEIANGES UNIDER FEUDAL SYSTEM. 19
military chiefs, and other powerful retainers, naturally obtained
the preference; and it required more courage than the electors
possessed to reject candidates so protected, however slenderly
they might be furnished with personal qualifications. Abuses
thus arose, which were exposed and resisted with undaunted re-
solution by the famous Hincmar, Archbishop of Reims. On one
occasion that prelate remonstrated in the plainest language with
Louis III., in whose name an unworthy pastor had been intruded
into the episcopate; bidding him not to imagine that when per-
mission was requested from the sovereign to proceed to an
election, it followed that the bishops, clergy, and people were
bound to fix upon the person whom he had thought fit to nomi-
nate. “This,” said the archbishop, “would be no election
according to the terms of the Divine law, but a lawless usurpation
of human power.” And if the circumstances be such as I have
heard, without doubt the same malignant spirit who, in the guise
of a Serpent, deceived our first parents and caused the loss of
paradise, has by means of similar flatterers whispered these
delusions in your ear.” f
The development of Feudalism brought with it important
innovations affecting the hierarchy of the Church. Bishops,
abbots, and all the higher dignitaries, became, in respect of their
large landed possessions, feudatories to the crown and other
secular suzerains; and as such, liable to the charges imposed on
territorial property by feudal law. Certain prelates, holding
estates in the “domaine royal,” were invested with temporal
peerages. The Archbishop of Reims, the bishops of Laon and
Langres, were created dukes; the bishops of Beauvais, Noyon,
Chalons sur Marne, obtained the title of count. The Bishop of
Senlis, also, was at one period a peer of France. Next in order
came the prelates who held fiefs of the dukes of Normandy,
Britanny, Burgundy, or of the counts of Champagne, Flanders,
and Toulouse; these, in feudal language, were “arrière-Vassaux”
of the crown. Lower in the scale were the abbots—regular,
secular, and commendatory — most of whom enjoyed feudal
baronies. .
The six great ecclesiastical peers took precedence of all other
* “Quae nonest Divinae legis electio, trolog., tom. CXXVi. p. 111.) Thomassin,
sed humana? potestatis extorsio.” Vet. et Nov. Eccles. Discip., II. Lib. ii.,
f Hincmar, Epist. xix. (Migne, Pa- | c. 23, § 3. -
C 2
20 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
prelates, and of all lay peers except the princes of the blood
royal. They possessed seats and votes in the Parliament of
Paris, since that court was held to represent the ancient court
of Peers, originally the supreme tribunal of the monarchy. The
abbots of Cluny and of St. Denis “en France” were also mem-
bers ex officio of the Parliament of Paris.”
All these clerical potentates were entitled to exercise the
rights of sovereignty within the limits of their own territories;
to coin money, impose taxes, make laws, declare war and peace,
and administer justice by their local courts and officers. Con-
sidering the vast extent of their civil and political powers, it was:
essential to discover some expedient by which they might be
kept in due subordination and allegiance to the crown. For this
purpose advantage was taken of the feudal ceremony of investi-
ture. The Oath of homage was exacted from the holders of
spiritual fiefs, as from all other vassals; and when the new pre-
late had thus pledged his fealty to his suzerain, the latter granted
to him the investiture of his fief, by delivering to him the crozier
and the ring. These, however, were the appropriate ensigns, not
of temporal dignity, but of the pastoral office. It was a plau-
sible proceeding in appearance, but in reality it carried with it a
most dangerous invasion of the liberties, and even of the consti-
tution, of the Church. For it implied, in the first place, that the
nomination to the highest ecclesiastical dignities formed part of
the inherent prerogative of the crown; and the right of free
election by the clergy and people was thus ignored. But fur-
ther, it suggested the idea that investiture conferred, not only the
episcopal status in the feudal hierarchy, but also the episcopal
office; i. e. that lay hands conveyed a purely spiritual jurisdiction.
It was from the prevalence of such grave misconceptions that
the celebrated contest arose in the eleventh century, known as
the “War of Investitures.” -
During this great struggle (the course of which was far less
violent, however, in France than elsewhere) the Gallican Church
windicated its rights with courage, and on the whole with success.
Gallican divines seem to have admitted that the sovereign was
entitled to confer on bishops the investiture of their temporal
fiefs held of the crown, provided that the ecclesiastical election
* Cf. Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles. Discip., III. Lib. i. Capp. 30, 31.
INTROD. ROYAL INVESTITURE. 21
and consecration had taken place previously; and provided, also,
that the oath exacted was that of “hommage simple,” not of
“hommage lige.” These conditions, it was held, sufficiently
excluded the notion that lay investiture had any share in the
transmission of the spiritual powers of the episcopate. Such was
the view taken by the great canonist Ivo, Bishop of Chartres,
as appears from his correspondence with the Papal Legate
Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons; * and again, by Hugues de
Fleury, in his treatise “De regiā potestate et sacerdotali
dignitate.”f
The practice, thus guarded and limited, became eventually
prevalent in France. The Bishop was first canonically elected;
the election was then published, and confirmed by the Metro-
politan ; ; then followed the consecration ; and lastly, the new
prelate took the Oath of allegiance to the Sovereign, upon
which he was put into possession of the temporalities of his see.
This order was indeed violated in later times as to one most
important particular. When the Crown had succeeded in mono-
polizing the patronage of the higher Church dignities, the oath
of homage was commonly made to precede, instead of following,
the act of consecration ;-an abuse against which the French
clergy did not fail to protest on various occasions."
In the course of this agitating controversy, the cause of
ecclesiastical independence was resolutely defended by several
great Councils held in France:–at Clermont, in 1095, in the
* Ivon., Episc. Carnot., Epist. lx. (ap.
Migne, Patrolog., tom. 162, p. 73.) Cf.
Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles. Discip.,
II. Lib. ii, cap. 32.
+ “Rex instinctu Spiritàs Sancti po-
test, sicut existino, præsulatās honorem
religioso clerico tribuere; animarum
verö curam Archiepiscopus debet ei
committere. Post electionelm autem,
mon annulum aut baculum a manu regià,
sed investituram rerum Sæcularium
electus antistes debet Suscipere, et in
suis ordinibus per annulum aut baculum
animarum curam ab archiepiscopo Suo,
ut negotium hujusmodi sine discepta-
tione peragatur, et terrenis et spiritali-
bus potestatibus suæ auctoritatis privi-
legium conservetur. Quod si regulariter
fuerit consorvatum, implebitur illud
quod Salvator noster in evangelio prae-
cipiens dicit, “IReddite quaesunt Caesaris
Caesari, et quae Sunt Dei Deo.” Hugon.
Floriac., Tractatus de regić potestate et
sacerdotali dignitate, apud Baluz, Mis-
cellam., tom. ii. p. 184.
i Thomassin., Vet. et Nov. Eccles.
Discip., II. Lib. ii. Cap. 18. Metropo-
litans were confirmed by the Pro-
vincial Council, Ib. cap. 19, No. 9, 12.
But from the time of Charlemagne the
custom began to prevail of seeking
confirmation from the Pope ; an abuse
which arose, like many others, from
disputes which could not be settled
without reference to Rome, and from
laxity and negligence on the part of
the local episcopate.
§ See the official collection entitled
Mémoires du Clergé de France, tom. xi.
p. 1083 et Seqq.
22 THE GALLICAN CHURCH, INTROD.
presence of Pope Urban II. ; at Troyes, in 1107, under Pope
Paschal II. in person; at Vienne, in Dauphiné, in 1112, where
the bishops repudiated the pusillanimous concessions of Paschal
to the Emperor Henry W.; * and at Reims, in 1119, where Pope
Calixtus II., at the head of thirteen archbishops and more than
two hundred bishops, prohibited all investitures at the hands of
laymen. This last imposing exhibition contributed probably to
bring about the compromise called the “Concordat of Worms,”
which shortly afterwards terminated the strife.
Towards the close of the twelfth century, the system of
ecclesiastical elections underwent a still further modification.
Erom the time when the election of the sovereign Pontiff was
restricted to the College of Cardinals, the Cathedral Chapters
laid claim to the exercise of a corresponding privilege in the
choice of their diocesans, to the exclusion not only of the laity,
but of the parochial clergy. t This assumption was ratified in
express terms by the 24th Canon of the great Lateran Council,
in 1215; ; and the right was generally recognized thence-
forward as belonging to the capitular bodies. The elections
were made by three different forms of procedure—by “inspira-
tion,” by “compromise,” or by “scrutiny;”—terms borrowed
from those in use in the Roman conclave. The choice of the
Chapter was then confirmed by the Metropolitan, with an appeal,
in case of dispute, to the Pope.' This practice continued during
the greater part of three centuries; but it was subject to frequent
interruptions, and was attended with serious evils. On the one
hand, gross unblushing Simony was induced by the perpetual
intervention of the Crown in favour of its own candidates; while
On the other, appeals to Rome became so common, on the ground
of alleged informality or defect in the elections, that the patronage
in numberless instances passed into the hands of the Pope.
By means of “devolutions,” “reserves,” “apostolical mandates,”
* De Marca, Concord., Lib. iv. cap.
8, § 7. It was on this occasion that the
Gallican prelates, demanding from Pope
Paschal the confirmation of their con-
ciliar decision, made the celebrated
declaration, “Si, quod minime credi-
mus, nostrae paternitatis assertiones
roborare nolueritis, propitius sit nobis
Deus, quia nos a vestrà obedientiá.
repelletis.” – Labbe, Concil., tom. x.
p. 785.
f De Marca, Concord. Sac. et Imp.,
Lib. viii. cap. 2, § 9. -
I Concil. Lateran. IV., Can. XXIV.,
Quia propter. Extrav. de Electione.
§ Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles.
Discip., II. Lib. ii. cap. 33.
INTROD. PRAGMATIC SANCTION OF S. LOUIS. 23
“expective graces,” and other specious expedients, the Court
of Rome gradually acquired a predominant influence in the
disposal of all the higher preferments in France.t
The first attempt of any importance to apply a remedy to these
anomalies was made by St. Louis; who, in the year 1268, pro-
mulgated his famous Ordonnance called the Pragmatic Sanc-
tion.f That monarch, though a devoted Son of the Church, full
of affectionate veneration for the Holy See, did not hesitate to
insert in this remarkable statute provisions aimed directly against
notorious evils which had arisen from Papal usurpation; and
claimed both for Church and State in France a certain character
of independent nationality. The Pragmatic Sanction of St. Louis
has been styled “the foundation stone of the Gallican liberties.” S
It is comprised in six articles. The first declares that the
prelates, patrons, and ordinary collators to benefices in the king-
dom shall fully enjoy their rights, and that the jurisdiction
lawfully belonging to each shall be maintained. The second
guarantees to cathedral churches the right of free episcopal
election. The third directs that the “pestilential crime of
Simony” be altogether banished (penitus eliminandum) from the
kingdom. The fourth Ordains that ecclesiastical promotions and
appointments of whatever kind be made conformably to the
common law, the canons of Councils, and the ancient institutions
of the Fathers. | The fifth prohibits the heavy pecuniary
burdens imposed by the Roman Court upon the Church of
France, “whereby our kingdom has been lamentably impo-
verished;” and provides “that none shall be hereafter levied,
unless for a reasonable, pious, urgent, and indispensable ne-
cessity, and with the free consent of the king and the said
* “Devolution ” signifies the lapse
of a benefice to the Pope, by reason of
failure on the part of the patron to
present a clerk duly qualified. By
“reserves" the Pope appropriated to
himself certain nominations, either in
particular cases, for a particular period,
or in particular countries. An “Apos-
tolical mandate ’’ was a brief addressed
to a Cathedral chapter, directing that a
vacant canonry or other dignity should
be bestowed on the person therein
named. “Graces expectatives * (gra-
tia expectativas) were prospective pro-
Selitations to benefices not yet vacant.
f Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles,
discip., II. Lib. ii. cap. 31, § 9.
I Ordonmances des Rois, tom. i. p. 97.
The authenticity of this edict has been
contested ; but it is clearly established
by Edm. Richer, Hist. Conc. Gen., Lib,
ii. p. 189. - -
§ Pasquier, Recherches de la France,
tom. iii, c. 22.
| Such, in the judgment of S. Louis
and his advisers, was the true foundas
tion of ecclesiastical “liberty.”
24 THE GALLTCAN CHURCEI. INTROD.
Church of France.” By the sixth and last article, the king
“renews, approves, and confirms all the franchises, prerogatives,
rights, and privileges granted by himself and his predecessors
to the churches, monasteries, religious orders, and ecclesiastics
of the realm.”
But the legislation of St. Louis—honourable as it was to his
own motives and character—produced little or no permanent
effect. Unworthy intrigue, simoniacal corruption, bitter dissen-
Sion, even tumultuous violence, became matters of common
scandal in the capitular elections. The interference of Rome
was perpetually invoked in contested cases; and it was this that
led by degrees to the practice of reserving to the Pope the pre-
Sentation to certain benefices, and to various other methods of
alienating preferment from the lawful patrons. Pontiffs of the
stamp of Boniface VIII. and John XXII. usurped as a right what
their predecessors had resorted to only under circumstances of
exceptional urgency, for the purpose of redressing abuses which
were bringing the Church into disgrace and contempt.
IV.
A second principle affirmed with marked emphasis from time
to time by the Gallican Church was that of the independence of
its local Councils, and the free exercise of canonical Jurisdiction
by its Metropolitans. In no part of the Christian world have
Councils been more frequent than in the Church of France;
a circumstance highly favourable, at first sight, to its disciplinary
condition, inasmuch as it is by Councils that the Church speaks,
acts, and judges, in its corporate capacity. But it will be found on
examination that their character and mode of action varied ma-
terially from age to age; and that their history, as a whole, pre-
sents a faithful epitome of the fluctuating fortunes of the Church,
in its relations to the Roman Supremacy on one side, and to the
domination of the civil authority on the other. In early times,
while complete harmony and union prevailed between Church
and State, Gallican synods were energetic, vigilant, and influ-
ential. But to this palmy period succeeded one of lamentable
laxity, which continued till the ignominious downfall of the
first Frankish dynasty. Under the “rois fainéants” synods were
gradually disused, and the functions of Metropolitans became
INTROD. DIOCESAN AND PROVINCIAL SYNODS. - 25
almost extinct. A brief resuscitation followed under the
Carlowingians; but at a later date, when their empire began to
sink into decay, the legislative system of the Church was fatally
attacked by the innovating policy of Rome, which reduced
Councils into dependence on the arbitrary will of the Pope, and
sapped their authority through the abuse of the privilege of
appeals. At length the spirit of mediaevalism was compelled to
yield to the steadily-sustained aggression of the French monarchs
of the “third race;” and in the sixteenth century Gallican synods
underwent a change of organization so essential, that, although
the clergy were still permitted to assemble by representation,
their meetings lost their original designation, which indeed would
have been a misnomer under such circumstances. The Pope had
enslaved the Councils of the Church; the Crown suppressed them.
Diocesan Synods—consisting of the clergy of a single diocese
under the presidency of the bishop—were held originally twice in
the year, in spring and autumn; in later times only once a year.
Provincial Synods, consisting of the Metropolitan and Compro-
vincial bishops, together with some few clergy of the second
order selected by them,” were in like manner celebrated in the
early ages twice every year, as ordered by the canon of Nicaea ;
apparently without interference on the part of the secular
Government, either in convoking or confirming them. The
Provincial Council, according to the invariable Gallican tradi-
tion, was the ordinary tribunal for the decision of all ecclesiastical
causes; it was the court of appeal from Diocesan synods, and
appeal from it was allowed, in certain cases and under well-
defined restrictions, to the Roman See. Yet in process of time,
through the same conflicting influences which proved successful
in annulling the freedom of elections, this great and wise insti-
tution of antiquity fell into disuse in France. The clergy
urgently and constantly petitioned for its restoration, and some-
times with partial success; but it was never permanently
re-established.
A third form of ecclesiastical assembly obtained from a very
* It would seem, however, that pres- | The Second Council of Orleans, A.D. 533,
byters were present only as the substi- ordered Provincial Councils to be held
tutes of bishops who were unable io once a year. Sirmond, Conc. Amt. Gall,
attend. Thomassim, Wet. et Nov. Eccl. tom. i. 229.
Discip., II. Lib. iii, capp. 50, 52, 53.
26 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
early period, namely that of the National Synod. These were
originally meetings of the bishops of the seventeen provinces
which formed the political “Diocese of Gaul.” Hence they
are alluded to in the Theodosian Code as “Diocesan Synods.””
“A Diocesan Synod,” says the commentator Godefroi, “is
composed of prelates belonging to several provinces, gathered
together under the presidency of a patriarch, primate, or
exarch. These Councils,” he continues, “are called Universal.
Such were those of Africa, of Gaul, of Spain, of Britain, and the
like.” From the middle of the fourth century the Gallican
episcopate was accustomed thus to meet in synod for the dis-
patch of ecclesiastical affairs, under the direct sanction and
summons of the Imperial Government. Such were the Synod
of Arles in 353; of Beziers two years afterwards; of Paris in
362; of Valence in 374; of Bordeaux in 385; of Treves in 386.f
An Imperial rescript was addressed to the Patriarch, Primate,
or Metropolitan, who thereupon cited the prelates within his
jurisdiction to attend at a given time and place. But these
larger gatherings by no means superseded or obstructed the
celebration of Diocesan and Provincial Councils. On the con-
trary, they enforced them as essential to sound discipline, and
enjoined them on the bishops under severe penalties."
During the decline of the Empire, the power of convoking
these national Councils was claimed by the Metropolitan Bishops
of Arles, to which city the seat of civil government had been
transferred on the destruction of Treves by the Wandals. The
ambitious Hilary insisted upon this, among other prerogatives,
as belonging to his See, and induced the Second Council of Arles
to pass a canon to that effect.|| Pope Hilarius, in 462, expressly
conferred the right of summoning Councils on Leontius, Bishop
of Arles; Pope Symmachus made a similar decree in favour of
St. Caesarius; and again, Pope Vigilius in favour of St. Aurelian.
But the Barbarian conquerors, in proportion as they made good
* Cod. Theod, Lib. xvi. Tit. II. § 23. Arelatensis Episcopi arbitrium Synodus
Ed. Ritter. congreganda; ad quam urbem ex omni-
f Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccl. bus mundi partibus, præcipue Galli-
Discipl., II. Lib. iii. capp. 45, 49. canis, sub sancti Marini tempore legi-
† De Marca, De Conc., Lib. vi. cap. mus celebratum fuisse concilium atque
17, § 4; cap. 19, § 3. conventum.” — Sirmond, Conc. Amt.
§ Thomassin, ubi suprā. Gall, tom. i. p. 105.
| Conc. Arelat. II., Can. xviii. : “Ad
INTROD. NATIONAL COUNCILS. 27
their footing in Gaul, assumed the same authority in eccle-
siatical concerns that had been exercised by their predecessors;
and ere long it was made necessary to the holding of a National
Council that their consent should be first obtained. Thus the
great Council of Agde (Agathense) in 506, at which St. Caesarius
presided, was celebrated “by permission of Alaric king of the
Visigoths.” Avitus, Bishop of Vienne, held the Council of Epaone
under the authority of Sigismund king of the Burgundians.
The first Council of Orleans (A.D. 511) assembled by order of
Clovis,” and presented its canons to that prince, with a request
that he would confirm and publish them in his quality of sove-
reign. The second Council of Orleans states in like manner, in
the preface to its Canons, that it was convened “by command
of the most glorious sovereigns”—i.e. of Theodoric, Childebert,
and Clothaire, the sons of Clovis. Sigebert, King of Austrasia,
in a letter to Desiderius, Bishop of Chalons, reproves the bishops
for having met in synod without the previous Sanction of the
Crown; and intimates that such proceedings must not be
repeated. “Though desirous to respect the Canons and Consti-
tutions ecclesiastical, he had determined, with the concurrence
of his nobles, that no Synod should be held in his dominions
without his knowledge. If his permission were requested, and
sufficient cause assigned, it would not be refused.” f
The records of Councils during the fifth and sixth centuries,
and the early part of the Seventh, give ample testimony to the
zeal of the Gallican Episcopate both for exactness of discipline
and purity of doctrine. The liberties of the Church were, how-
ever, grievously invaded by the later Merovingian princes;
they violated the freedom of elections, set at nought the decrees
of Councils, practised simony, and encouraged abuses which,
unless corrected, would have been fatal to the ecclesiastical
constitution.
So long as the laws of the Church were outwardly respected,
and ecclesiastical authority was substantially upheld by the
civil ruler, it would seem that the Popes of this period forbore
to meddle with the practice of National Churches as to synods
and other details of discipline. But when the sceptre had
* “Auctore Deo et ex evocatione p. 143. Preuves des Libertés de l'Egl. Gal-
gloriosissimi regis Chlotovechi.” lic., p. 234.
f Baluz., Capit. Reg, Franc., tom. i.
28 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. INTROD.
fallen into the degenerate hands of the last descendants of Clovis,
they failed not to interpose with the vigour and fearlessness
which befitted their office.
Thus Gregory the Great, hearing that synods were systema-
tically neglected in Austrasia, wrote in strong language to Queen
Brunechilde, exhorting her to lose no time in calling a General
Assembly of the prelates of the realm. Failing of success, the
Pontiff despatched letters to the Metropolitans of Arles, Lyons,
Vienne, and the Bishop of Autun,” bidding them employ all their
influence at court to procure the required Council. Subsequently
he appointed Virgilius, Bishop of Arles, his Vicar-General
throughout the empire of the Franks, f (with an express reser-
vation, however, of the rights of Metropolitans) and authorized
him to convoke bishops in Council for the adjudication of eccle-
siastical causes; enjoining an appeal, in cases of special diffi-
culty, to the Apostolic See. I
It will scarcely be denied, on a candid consideration of the
circumstances, that such action was originally taken by the
Popes out of Zeal for the efficient administration of the Church.
Contemporary evidence shows that the intervention of Rome
was occasioned by the incapacity and unfaithfulness both of the
civil authorities and of the local episcopate. It is true that this
movement resulted eventually in a wider development of the
power of the Papacy, both spiritual and temporal; but that
result cannot be ascribed with justice to a mere sordid love of
self-aggrandisement, or a systematic pursuit of power for its
own Sake.
In spite of all efforts and remonstrances, few Councils were
held in Gaul during the latter part of the Merovingian period.
Only twenty are recorded during the whole of the seventh cen-
tury; and through this culpable laxity on the part of its respon-
sible rulers, the Gallo-Frankish Church sank into a deplorable
state of corruption and decay.S --
* This was Syagrius, a prelate who
stood high in the confidence of Brune-
childe. Gregory, at her request, Sent
him the pallium, and gave him prece-
dence in the province next to the Metro-
politan of Lyons.
+ Virgilius seems to have been the
last bishop of Arles who exercised the
office of Apostolic Vicar in Gaul.
The
disorders of the times extinguished not
only the primatial jurisdicion of that
See, but almost the entire system of
episcopal government.
f S. Greg., Registr. Epist., Lib. v.,
Ep. 53, 54, 55; Lib. ix. Ep. 106; Lib.
xi., Ep. 63. Edit. Benedict., Paris,
1705.
§ The following picture of its con-
INTROD. COUNCILS UNDER THE CARLOWINGIANS. 29
The accession of the Carlovingian dynasty brought with it a
remarkable revival of discipline. The “second race” of Frank
sovereigns formed an intimate alliance with the Roman Pontiffs;
and the latter, perceiving that their acquisition of power might
prove of infinite service to the Church, supported them with the
whole weight of their authority, and invested them, in fact, with
functions which were purely ecclesiastical. Carloman, the son
and successor of Charles Martel, commenced the work of reforma-
tion by convening a National Council, known as that “ of
Germany,” in the year 742.* The great S. Boniface, archbishop
of Mayence, presided on this occasion, under a special commis-
sion as Legate from Pope Zacharias. The canons then enacted
were republished in the following year at another Council held
at Leptines, also under the presidency of S. Boniface. The same
course was pursued by Pepin-le-Bref; in whose reign the
Council of Vernai enjoined that two Assemblies should be
held every year; the first in the month of March, in the pre-
sence of the king, and at the place which he should appoint; the
second in October, at Soissons or elsewhere, as the bishops
might determine when they met in the spring. The first of
these was a mixed assembly, consisting not of bishops only, but
also of the counts and other lay nobles; the latter was an eccle-
siastical synod, composed of metropolitans, bishops, abbots, and
priests. It was convoked by the metropolitans, and all persons
Summoned by them were canonically bound to attend.
The government of Charlemagne presented a singular specimen
of the complete fusion or amalgamation of Church and State.
The national assemblies of his reign were virtually, though not
in strict form, Councils of the Church; while, on the other hand,
the bishops, in their quality of “Missi dominici,” were employed
as actively in the concerns of political government as in the
dition is drawn by S. Boniface in a
letter to Pope Zacharias: —“Franci,
ut seniores dicunt, plusquam per tempus
octoginta annorum synodum non fece-
runt, nec Archiepiscopum babuerunt,
mec Ecclesiae canonica jura alicubi
fundabant vel removabant. Modò autem
maximã ex parte per civitates Episco-
pales sedes traditae sunt laicis ad possi-
dendum, vel adulteratis clericis, SCOrta-
toribus et publicanis, Sæculariter ad
perfruendum.”
* “Concilium Germanicum.” The
locality is doubtful; it is conjectured
to have been Ratisbon.—Labbe, Concil.,
tom. vi. p. 1533.
f Baron., Annal., tom. xii. p. 477.
| “Concilium Vernense,” A.D. 755.
$ We have here the evident germ
of the modern “Parlement,” which
was originally of a semi-ecclesiastical
character,
30 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. INTROI).
spiritual administration of their dioceses. It must be observed,
however, that during the life of Charlemagne these assemblies
had little or no direct authority in legislation, whether political
or ecclesiastical. They were scarcely more than consultative
bodies; the Emperor retained in his own hands the initiative of
measures to be discussed, and also the power of final decision.
The See of Rome expressly sanctioned, instead of opposing, this
course of action; and it must be acknowledged that the interests
of the Church could hardly have been confided to worthier hands
than those of Charlemagne. His zeal for the exact observance
of synodal legislation was unbounded. His “Capitularies’ are
full of passages quoted from the ancient councils, such as those
of Nicaea, Chalcedon, Antioch, Ancyra, Sardica, Gangra, Carthage,
and Neocaesarea—which he applies and enforces as laws of the
Empire. The clergy of all ranks trusted him implicitly, and
had abundant cause for doing so. They regarded the Imperial
decrees with scarcely less reverence and submission than they
paid to the canonical legislation of the Church. They styled
them “the handmaids of the canons;” “ and were accustomed to
transcribe and adopt them verbatim in the proceedings of Pro-
vincial and Diocesan Synods. Hence we find frequent extracts
from them in the collection of Canon Law by Ivo of Chartres,
and in the ‘Decretum of Gratian.
In the last year but one of his reign Charlemagne convoked
five great Councils simultaneously in the metropolitical cities of
Arles, Mayence, Reims, Tours, and Chalons. They legislated in
a spirit of unqualified subjection to the Crown; they submitted
their canons in distinct terms to the judgment of the Emperor,
requesting him to alter and correct whatever he might disap-
prove, and to confirm and give effect to whatever he might think
wise and profitable.f -
But the system of government pursued by Charlemagne was
exceptional and transient. When the Empire, under the rule of
his incapable successors, was manifestly falling into decrepitude
and dissolution, the Popes began a second time to interfere with
decisive energy in the internal administration of the Gallican
* “Ut canonum praecipiunt instituta, | Labbe, Concil., tom. vii. p. 1238
simulque eorum pedisequa Regum et seq. Dupuy, Prewves des Libertés,
capitularia.”—Concil. Troslei., Can. III. &c., p. 238.
f Cf. Baluz., Capit., Praefat, ad Lect.
INTROD. DEVELOPMENT OF PAPAL POWER. 31
Church. They now asserted an absolute right to receive appeals
in all ecclesiastical causes, and that even previously to the
sentence of the local tribunals. They claimed the power of
convoking Councils at their pleasure—of presiding over them
either in person or by “legates à latere”—of confirming or dis-
allowing their decisions, and even of annulling them altogether.
These pretensions were not wholly new ; for, as we have
already seen, the principle of appealing to Rome in the “causae
majores” was recognized at least as early as the fifth century.
Leo the Great had censured and disallowed the legislation even
of an OEcumenical Council; and the proceedings of Provincial
synods had been revised and reversed in various instances of an
equally remote date. But this system was now more exten-
sively developed and more stringently applied; and the circum-
stances of the Church, both external and internal, were such
as to promote its reception. Secular government—no longer
directed by the master-mind of Charlemagne—was sinking into
a state of collapse, and Society was threatened with anarchy and
chaos. The Crown was powerless to protect the Church; while
the great lay vassals, struggling among themselves for ascend-
ency, had every inducement to embarrass its action. The clergy,
meanwhile, especially the bishops, possessed a considerable
share of power, arising not only from their superiority in intel-
lect and education, but from the vast extent of their domains,
and the high rank which they held in the feudal aristocracy.
The Popes, doubtless, perceived that this power, skilfully conso-
lidated and efficiently administered, might prove the providential
means of restoring unity and order, both social and religious.
They saw that Rome, at such a moment, was the true rallying-
point—the true source of moral regeneration. To rivet more
closely the links which bound all orders of ecclesiastics to the
See of Peter was to concentrate, and therefore immeasurably
to increase, the energies and resources of the Church. This
policy—often so severely reprobated as an inexcusable usurpa-
tion—does not appear to have sprung from any deliberate design
either to intrude upon the just prerogatives of the Crown or to
curtail the liberty of the Church, according to the sense in which
it was then understood. The problem of the moment was how
to save both Church and State by enabling them to make head
against the surging flood of semi-barbarous revolution. It was
32 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
a necessity, at such a crisis, that the ecclesiastical element, as
embodied in the Papacy, should assume grander and more
dominant proportions, in order to avert a general cataclysm.
Nor, perhaps, ought we to be surprised that the Popes, in the
face of such difficulties, should have overstepped the bounds of
precedent and ignored the legislation of former ages. For any
such modification of existing usage a plausible excuse was always
at hand in the abnormal circumstances of the times. “Salus
populi Suprema lex.”
The appellate jurisdiction of Rome—involving as it did ques-
tions of crucial importance as to the rights of metropolitans and
the authority of provincial Councils—was the main-spring of
the agitation which prevailed during the ninth and tenth cen-
turies. The Gallican episcopate, under the leadership of Hinc-
mar, Archbishop of Reims, steadily defended the supremacy of
the ancient Canon Law, which they maintained to be unalterably
binding. The Pope, on the contrary, seems to have held that
the legislation of primitive times might be made to square with
considerations of expediency, and adapted to the successive
needs of the Church. Hence arose a conflict between the old
and the new discipline; the former based on the decrees of the
great CEcumenical Councils—the latter derived chiefly from the
rescripts of individual Pontiffs, or rather from a series of docu-
ments purporting to be such, but which are now known to be
spurious-—the “Pseudo-Isidorian” Decretals. Hincmar, the
champion of the constitutional system, was not only an accu-
rate canonist, but a man of remarkable administrative power,
and the foremost statesman of the age. He was confronted, how-
ever, by one who was at least his equal in genius and energy,
and who had formed a broader conception of the requirements
of the Church at a moment of special embarrassment. This was
Pope Nicholas I. The struggle which ensued was keen and
lengthened; but the Papal policy triumphed in the end.
Several typical cases occurred at this period, illustrating the
change of relation between the Papal See and the metropolitan
and diocesan episcopate. The first is that of Rhotad, Bishop of
Soissons. Here the conduct of Pope Nicholas was manifestly
contrary to the existing statutes and long-established practice
of the Church. Rhotad had been cited by his Metropolitan,
Hincmar, to answer certain charges before a provincial Council
INTROD. HINCMAR ON APPEALS TO ROME. 33
at Senlis. He refused to appear, and appealed to the Pope;
which, according to the canons, he had no right to do until
after the synod of the province had pronounced its sentence.
Being summoned to attend a second Council at Soissons, he
again declined; whereupon he was arrested by the King's order,
deposed from office, and confined in a monastery. The Arch-
bishop and his suffragan were both politically and personally
obnoxious to each other; and there can be no doubt that the
treatment experienced by Rhotad, even if justifiable by the
letter of the law, was harsh and extreme. His appeal was
eagerly received at Rome, and the Pope wrote to Hincmar re-
quiring him to reinstate the accused prelate within thirty days,
on pain of suspension; or, as an alternative, to send him forthwith
to Rome, together with commissioners on his own behalf, that
the case might be re-argued in the presence of the Pontiff.”
But these were unconstitutional demands. Hincmar, in his
reply, which is worded with the utmost respect, reminds the Pope
of the forms of procedure with regard to appeals to Rome, as
prescribed by the Council of Sardica, upon whose decrees the
practice mainly rested. He states that, in the causae majores
affecting bishops, if the accused appeals to the Holy See, it is
the duty of the provincial Synod, after pronouncing judgment,
to report to the Pope; and that, if his Holiness should so de-
termine, the cause must be heard a second time. The Pope,
however, does not arbitrate in person—far less does he restore
such accused prelate by virtue of his sole prerogative; but he
issues a commission to the comprovincial bishops, or to other
special legates, desiring them to institute a fresh trial on the
spot; their decision being final. Such, undoubtedly, were the
regulations then in force; and hence we see that the Gallican
Bishops still adhered to those wise provisions of antiquity, by
which the Church had drawn a distinction between autocratical
supremacy and a limited Patriarchal jurisdiction.
Nevertheless, since the Pope persisted in requiring the per-
sonal appearance of Rhotad at Rome, he was at length permitted
to proceed thither. Nicholas, after waiting several months, but
in vain, for the commissaries whom he had ordered Hincmar to
* Nicolai Papae I., Epis. 34, ann. 863 (Migne, Patrolog., tom. cxix.)
f Sirmond, Concil. Antiq. Gall., tom. iii. p. 254.
WOL. I. D
34 * THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
send to represent him, proceeded to restore the deposed bishop
in due form, and despatched a legate to France, by whom the
sentence was carried into effect. Rhotad continued to govern
the see of Soissons till his death.
All the circumstances connected with this case of Rhotad
deserve careful examination. It appears that the Council
which deposed him had submitted to the Pope that the Bishop's
appeal was inadmissible according to the laws of the Empire. In
reply to this, Nicholas gave them to understand that “temporal
laws are not always to be applied to ecclesiastical causes, inas-
much as they are often at variance with the provisions of the
canons.”* Further, he instructs them that in causes of this
nature the jurisdiction of the Pope is paramount; his sentence,
the highest and irrefragable expression of the Church's judicial
authority. “Even if Rhotad had not appealed, you ought not to
have deposed a bishop without consulting the Pope, in violation
of so many decretals and precepts of our predecessors, which
the Roman Church reverently preserves among its archives.”
And whereas it was objected (in all probability by Hincmar) that
these decretals were not to be found in the Code of Canons, and
therefore were not obligatory, Nicholas declares that all injunc-
tions of the Pope are of equal authority, equally binding on the
faithful, whether included in the collection of canons or not.f
* Grat., Decret., I. Dist. x. cap. 1 :
“Lege imperatorum non in omnibus
ecclesiasticis controversiis utendum est,
praesertim quum inveniantur evangelicae
et canonicae Sanctioni aliquoties ob-
viare. Lex imperatorum non est Supra
legem Dei, sed subtus. Imperiali judi-
cio non possunt ecclesiastica jura dis-
Solvi.”
f Nicol. ad univ. Episc. Galliaº, ap.
Sirmond, Concil. Antiq. Gall, tom. iii.
p. 259. The celebrated canon “Si
Romanorum ” (Dist. xix. cap. 1) is ex-
tracted from this epistle. Here the
Pope quotes the authority of his pre-
decessors, Leo and Gelasius, as decisive
upon the point of discipline which was
contested by the Gallican bishops. The
former Pontiff had stated, in one of
his Epistles, that “all decretal consti-
tutions promulgated by the Holy See
out of the ecclesiastical regulations
and the directions of the canons, were
to be observed in the Church with such
exactness, that any one wilfully offend-
ing against them must not expect to be
excused.” (“Omnia decretalia consti-
tuta, tam beatae recordationis Innocentii,
quam omnium decessorum nostrorum,
quae de ecclesiasticis ordinibus et
canonum promulgata sunt disciplinis,
ita a Vestră Dilectione custodiri manda-
mus, ut si quis in illa commiserit,
veniam Sibi noverit denegari.”) But
Edm. Richer (De eccles, et polit.
potest. Demonst., cap. 8, § 3) points out
that this does not refer to decrees
made by the Pope on his personal au-
thority, “ex motu proprio,” but to in-
junctions published by him as extracted
from the canons,—the Pope being the
Organ through which the laws of Coun- .
cils are announced to the universal
Church. Indeed Gratian himself, com-
menting on the canon in question,
qualifies the authority of these decretals
by a similar restriction. “Hoc intelli-
gendum est de illis Sanctionibus vel
INTROD. THE FORGED DECRETALS. 35
The obvious tendency of such a doctrine was to render the
Pope independent of the legislation of Councils, and, in fact, to
supersede the legislative functions of the Church altogether.
It appears, then (1), that the practice of referring causa majores,
such as the deposition of a bishop, to the judgment of Rome in
the first instance, was unsanctioned by the Code of Canons (that of
Dionysius Exiguus) at this time received in the Gallican Church.
And (2), that the practice was said to be justified by certain
decretal epistles of ancient Pontiffs, which, nevertheless, had not
been inserted in the authorized body of Canon law. Baronius
and most historians infer that the decretals thus alluded to are
none other than the documents which had then recently made
their appearance under the name of “Isidore Mercator,” and
which long afterwards were discovered to be forgeries. There
is no reason to suppose, however, that Nicholas was aware that
they were forged; indeed, since he never quotes from the
Isidorian collection, and since it was first circulated in a part of
Europe far distant from Rome, it is probable that he had never
seen it.” On the other hand, supposing these documents to be
genuine, they would, of course, have possessed considerable
weight and authority towards determining the points in debate.
Presumably, in the absence of proof to the contrary, they were
genuine; and accordingly Hincmar, though he may have had
his private suspicions, did not object to them publicly on the
score of authenticity, but because, in the first place, these
epistles were sometimes inconsistent with themselves, and next,
because in some cases they were at variance with the ancient
canon law.f The latter was the principal gravamen. It was a
decretalibus epistolis, in quibus nec
praecedentium Patrum decretis, nec
evangelicis praeceptis, aliquid con-
trarium invenitur.”
* See the ingenious arguments of
|Ballerini, De Ant. Collect. Cam., Pt. III.
cap. 6, S. LeOn., Opp. tom. iii.
f “In illis reperiri quasdam sen-
tentias inter se dissomas; potiusque
esse sacris canonibus promulgatisfidem
accommodandum, quam ejusmodi epis-
tolis.”—Flodoard., Hist, Rhêmens., Lib.
iii. cap. 22.
“Quantum enim distet inter ea Sci-
licet Concilia quae custodienda et re-
cipienda decrewit, et inconvulsa fir-
maque deinceps Patres Catholici ma-
mere voluerunt, et illas epistolas quae
diversis temporibus pro diversorum.
consolatione datae fuerunt, quas wenera-
biliter suscipiendas docuit, nemo dog-
matibus exercitatus ignorat. Si enim
quaedam ex his quae in quibusdam illis
epistolis continentur tenere et custodiri
yelle inceperimus, adversus ea quæ ante
servare voluimus, faciemus ; et à Con-
ciliis sacris quae perpetuo mobis reci-
pienda, tenenda, custodienda atque Se-
quenda sunt, deviabimus.” Hincm.
opusc. in caus. Hincm. Laudun., cap.
25 (Migne, Patrol., tom. cxxvi.). This
latter passage is decisive as to Hinc-
D 2
36 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
question of comparative and relative authority. There might
exist, not improbably, whether at Rome or elsewhere, decretal
epistles of the early Popes, in addition to those which had been
collected by Dionysius, and embodied in his Codex Canonum.
Any and all such utterances of the Apostolic See, if agreeable
to the legislation of CEcumenical councils, Hincmar declared
himself ready to accept with the utmost veneration. But he
declined to invest these dicta of individual Pontiffs with an
authority co-equal with that of the Church in her legislative
Synods. It was this latter portentous assumption of the Papacy
that formed the strain of the contest so gallantly sustained by
Hincmar and his suffragans, and by several successive genera-
tions of the Gallican hierarchy. The controversy, in the ninth
and tenth centuries, did not turn upon the genuineness of the
particular collection of decretals edited by the Pseudo-Isidore
(for it would seem that in those days there was not sufficient
critical skill to detect the fraud) but upon the degree of eccle-
siastical force and obligation attaching to any documents of that
nature, when put in competition with the synodical statutes of
the Church. -
Pope Nicholas showed a similar spirit of encroachment in
the matter of certain priests who were deposed by a provincial
council at Soissons in the year 853, as having been uncanonically
ordained by Ebbo, a former Archbishop of Reims, who had him-
self been deprived for taking part in the treasonable conspiracy
against Louis le Debonnaire. They appealed to the Apostolic
See; and the Pope—although there was no just ground of excep-
tion to the proceedings at Soissons, which had been confirmed
mar’s view of the general drift of the
Isidorian decretals — viz., that they
tended to introduce a serious change
of discipline, a departure from the
venerable legislation of the ancient
Councils. . Even Ballerini admits that
some such result followed from the
publication and reception of the spuri-
ous canons. “Negarimon posse widetur,
quin eaden (nova) disciplina latius
propagata magis multo inoleverit, post-
quam eaedem decretales editae et di-
vulgatae fuerunt, ac mox in quibusdam
Conciliis laudatae.” The change is
thus characterised by the Chancellor
D'Aguesseau –“The old law signifies
the ancient collections of canons which
were current in the Church till the
publication of Isidore's collection ex-
clusively. The new law consists of
the new collections of canons and Ponti-
fical decretals, the last of which forms,
together with the Decretum of Gratian,
what is called the ‘Body of canon
law.” This collection is chiefly com-
posed of what is least valuable in the
canonical constitutions, insomuch that
it might be more correctly styled the
body of the Pope's law than of the
law of the Church.”—D’Aguesseau,
Instructions sur les Etudes, CEuvres,
tom. i. p. 281,
INTROD. DEPOSITION OF HINOMAR OF LAON. 37
by his predecessor—ordered the Bishops to meet a second time
and revise their sentence. Hincmar behaved on this occasion
with remarkable moderation and forbearance. He pointed out
that it was impossible to cancel the decrees of the former synod,
which had been passed by legitimate authority, and were fully
justified by the facts; but at the same time he suggested that
in virtue of the power conferred upon them by the Pope's com-
mission, it was open to them to commute a sentence which his
Holiness considered too severe, and to Satisfy the requirements
of discipline by the “more excellent way” of charity. Accord-
ingly the Council, while carefully maintaining the validity of
the previous acts in condemnation of the accused, restored them
to the priesthood as a measure of “indulgence,” and out of
deference to the wishes of the Holy Father.”
Under Adrian II., who succeeded Nicholas, the Gallicans again
contended for the lawful jurisdiction of their local Councils in the
case of Hincmar, Bishop of Laon, a nephew of the Metropolitan
of Reims. The younger Hincmar, a turbulent, headstrong man,
finding that he was likely to be condemned by the sentence of
his brethren, availed himself of the resource which was found
more and more convenient by those who sought to evade justice,
and appealed to the Pope. The appeal was disregarded by the
French prelates, who, at the Council of Douzi in 871, pro-
nounced Hincmar guilty, and deposed him from his see ; the
sentence of deposition being signed by eight Archbishops and
thirteen Bishops. In their synodical epistle to Pope Adrian,
these prelates begged his Holiness, if he should think proper
to revise their proceedings (which they did not anticipate), to
do so in the form prescribed by the Canons—namely, by ap-
pointing commissioners to examine the affair afresh in the pro-
vince to which it belonged; and demanded that Hincmar should
not be reinstated prior to such investigation. “I'or up to this
time,” said they, “no decree of antiquity has ever been admitted
in derogation of this privilege in the Gallican and Belgic
churches.”f Adrian, in reply, insisted on the prerogative of
his See; commanded Hincmar to attend personally at Rome to
pursue his appeal; and in the mean time forbade any fresh
* Labbe, Concil., tom. viii. p. 816. - t Ibid., p. 1656.
38 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
appointment to the See of Laon. But the resolute opposition
which he encountered both from the King (Charles the Bald)
and the episcopate induced him ere long to change his tone.
“Let me remind you,” said the King, in a letter evidently dic-
tated by Hincmar, “that the prerogative of St. Peter is in force,
as St. Leo declares, when his decrees are founded on the laws of
equity; whence it follows that if unjust they are of no autho-
rity.”* And the bishops significantly remarked that before
pronouncing sentence upon Hincmar, they had caused the
canons of Sardica to be read in synod. The Pope now made
an important concession; he promised that if Hincmar were
permitted to proceed to Rome he would forbear to decide upon
the case, and would cause it to be finally adjudicated in the
province. The result was that the deposition remained valid,
and a successor was appointed to the See of Laon. The
unfortunate Hincmar was afterwards treated with barbarous
rigour; he was kept a close prisoner, and was deprived of his
eyesight.
The influence of Hincmar of Reims was again clearly pre-
dominant in a council held at Pontyon in the year 876; when
the Gallican prelates resisted the pretensions of Ansegisus, Arch-
bishop of Sens, who had been appointed by Pope John VIII.
primate and Vicar Apostolic in Gaul and Germany. The newly-
crowned Emperor, Charles the Bald, who had lately returned
from Rome, was present on this Occasion, together with two
Papal legates. The Pope's letter was read, constituting Ansegisus
his representative in France, empowering him to convoke coun-
cils, and to exercise a general Superintendence over ecclesiastical
affairs. The Bishops desired leave to read the document for
themselves; but the Emperor refused to allow this, and de-
manded their unqualified submission to the mandate. Upon
this they replied that they were ready to obey the Pope's com-
mands, provided always that they were in conformity with the
ancient canons, and with those decrees which the Popes them-
* “Manet ergo Petri privilegium, (Edit. Baller.) Decret. II., Caus. xxiv.
ubicumque ex ipsius fertur asquitate ju- | Quaest. 1.
dicium, mec nimia est wel Severitas wel f Hadr. II. Papae Epist. xix. ap.
remissio; ubi nihil erit ligatum, nihil | Bouquet, Recueil des Historiens, tom.
solutum, nisi quod B. Petrus aut Sol- vii. p. 458.
verit aut liga verit.” S. Leon., Serm. IV.
INTROD. COUNCIL OF PONTYON. 39
selves had promulgated as enacted by the Councils. They
were pressed by the Emperor and the legates at several succes-
sive meetings to accept the appointment unconditionally, but to
no purpose; nothing was to be obtained from them beyond their
former carefully guarded answer. The Bishop of Bordeaux,
who was ambitious of being translated, through the favour of the
Emperor, to the Archbishopric of Bourges, was the only prelate
who expressed himself willing to acquiesce in the demand. The
Emperor, much irritated, declared that he had authority from
the Pope to carry his orders into effect in the matter, and
proceeded to install Ansegisus in a chair of state next to the
legates, thus establishing his primatial dignity in the face of
the assembled episcopate. Hincmar protested against this as
a violation of the Canons. Renewed efforts were made subse-
quently to induce the bishops to recognise Ansegisus in his new
position; “but he obtained nothing more at the conclusion of
the Council than he had done at the beginning.”.” There can-
not be a clearer proof of the paramount importance attached
by the Gallican Church to the principle of synodical legislation,
and to the authority of the primitive system of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction. Hincmar inculcates this doctrine at great length
and with singular power in one of his epistles. “If,” he says,
“in this humble synod of ours anything has been superadded or
sanctioned, through the complaisance of two or three prelates,
the silence of others, or the pride of imperial power, in contra-
vention of the sacred canons, or of Pontifical decrees promul-
gated agreeably to those canons, or at variance with the ancient
privileges secured to every Metropolitan by the selfsame laws—
if any such crude and inconsiderate measure has been broached,
it must be understood that the great majority of our body did
not consent to it, but most resolutely rejected it with heart and
mouth; and the judgment of the majority carried with it due
weight and effect—an effect which, with the help of God, will
last for ever.i For, as S. Leo writes to Maximus, Bishop of
* Annal. Bertin, ap. Sirmond, Concil. annuit, Sed COrde ac contradicente ore
Antiq. Gall., tom. iii. constantissimè abnuit ; et sententia
f Hincmar, Epist. XXX. c. 33 plurimorum debitum robur atque vigo-
(Migne, Patrolog., tom. cxxvi. p. 208). rem obtinuit, obtinet, ac adjuvante
| “Generalitasnostra Deo auctore non | Domino perpetim obtinebit.”
40 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
Antioch,” whatever may have been attempted, or for a time
extorted by violence by any one, in opposition to the statutes
of Nicaea, can do no prejudice to those inviolable decrees. Far
easier were it to dissolve the bonds of any other compact, be
the contracting parties whom they may, than that the regu-
lations of the aforesaid canons should be in any particular
abrogated.” -
Thus the Pontifical rescript in favour of Ansegisus remained
practically null and void. The Archbishops of Sens assumed
from that time forward the title of “Primates of Gaul and
Germany;” but it was a mere nominal distinction, unattended
by jurisdiction or authority.
The circumstances attending the deposition of Arnulf, Arch-
bishop of Reims, in 991, afford another proof of Gallican tenacity
in adhering to the regulations of the ancient discipline. Arnulf,
a natural son of King Lothaire, had been convicted of high
treason against Hugh Capet, and was in consequence deposed
by a Council held at the monastery of St. Bâle, near Reims.f
It was urged in his defence that the Council had proceeded
irregularly ; that the affair ought to have been notified in the
first instance to the Pope, and that it was for him to summon a
council to take cognizance of the charge and pronounce judg-
ment. The Bishop of Orleans, who conducted the prosecution,
replied that the Pope (John XV.) had been informed, that
during many months the bishops had awaited his answer, and
that, since none had arrived, they were justified in acting on
their own authority. “The Church of Rome,” said this prelate,
(or rather Gerbert, who, no doubt, composed the speech which he
attributes to him), “is for ever to be honoured in memory of
St. Peter; and the decrees of the Popes are to be duly respected,
* S. Leo ad Maximum Antiochen.
Episc. (Epist. 66, al. 92) : “Si quid a
quoquam contra Nicaenorum canonum
statuta in quâcunque synodo vel ten-
tatum est wel ad tempus widetur ex-
tortum, nihil praejudicii potest inviola-
bilibus inferre decretis. Et facilius erit
quorumlibet consensionum pactum dis-
solvi, quam praedictorum canonum regu-
las ex ullā parte corrumpi.”
+ Labbe, Concil., tom. ix. p. 738. The
acts of this Council have come down to
us on the authority of Gerbert; from
which circumstance Baronius disputes
their authenticity, since Gerbert was
undoubtedly a party nearly interested
in the cause. But it is not likely that
he has been guilty of serious misrepre-
sentation, for he was surrounded by
so many quick-sighted rivals, that any
such fraud could hardly have escaped
detection. Moreover, his account agrees
closely with that of the contemporary
chronicler Richer.
INTROD. GERBERT ON PAPAL ADMINISTRATION. 41
saving always the canons of Nicaea and of other councils, which
must remain eternally in force. For we must take good heed
that neither the silence nor the new constitutions of the Pope
are allowed to prejudice the ancient canons of the Church. If
his silence is to prevail, it follows that all laws—all the decrees
of antiquity—must be suspended so long as he remains mute.
But if we are to be bound by his new constitutions, where is the
use of enacting laws at all, since they may be rescinded at Once
by the will of a single individual? Do we, then, wish to detract
from the just prerogatives of Rome? By no means. But, alas!
how pitiable is the condition of Rome at present ' The throne
of the Leos and the Gregories, of Gelasius and of Innocent, is
occupied by monsters of licentiousness, cruelty, and impiety.
Let us pray for the conversion of our superiors; but, meanwhile,
let us look for advice and direction to some other quarter than
Rome, where all is corrupt, and justice is bartered for gold.”
The bishop then proceeds to comment upon the famous dicta of
Popes Innocent and Gelasius, to the effect that Rome is the
judge of the universal Church, while she herself cannot be
judged at all; that all the world is entitled to appeal to Rome,
but that from her judgment there is no appeal.” “If this be
so,” says the orator, “we have at least a right to demand that
the Roman Pontiff shall be one capable of pronouncing an indis-,
putable judgment; whereas it is reported that, at present, Rome
is given up to the most barbarous ignorance. But, even sup-
posing that the present Pope were a Damasus,” he continues,
“what have we done to contravene his decree ?? We never
attempted to decide this cause until no hope remained of our
obtaining a decision from Rome. And as to holding a council
* Decret. II. Caus. IX. Qu. iii. Capp.
13, 16, 17, 18.
† The bishop is evidently not aware
that the decree to which he alludes is
fictitious. It is one of the Pseudo-Isi-
dorian decretals, professing to be an
epistle from Pope Damasus to Stephen,
an archbishop of Mauritania (1)ecret. II.
Caus. III. Qu. vi. c. 6): “Discutere
episcopos et Summas ecclesiasticorum
negotiorum causas Metropolitano una.
cum onnibus suis comprovincialibus,
licet; sed diffinire ecclesiasticorum
Summas querelas causarum, Veldamnare
episcopos abs(ſue hujus Sanctae sedis
auctoritate, minimè licet; quonian om-
nes appellare, si necesse fuerit, et ejus
auxilio ſulciri oportet.” The prohibi-
tion to hold councils without permission
from Rome does not occur in this de-
cretal, but in another, equally “un-
historical,” ascribed to Pope Julius
(Caus. III. Qu. iv. cap. 9). Again,
Dist. xvii. c. 2: “Non est rectum con-
cilium, quod auctoritate Romana Ec-
clesiae fultunn non fuerit.” The Isi-
42 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
without his permission, the Council of Nicaea, so specially
reverenced by Rome herself, ordains that councils shall be held
in each province twice every year, without any mention of the
authority of the Pope. In short,” he concludes, “to avoid fur-
ther disputing, if the judgment of Rome be just, we will accept
it willingly; but, if unjust, let us obey the Apostle, and refuse to
listen even to an angel from heaven, if he should command any-
thing contrary to the Gospel. If Rome is silent, as in the
present case, let us consult the laws of the Church. What other
course is open to us, since Rome appears to be abandoned by all
aid, divine and human, nay, even to have abandoned herself?”
The bishops and clergy of the province elected, as successor
to Arnulf, the accomplished Gerbert, then President of the
Ecclesiastical College at Reims, afterwards Pope Sylvester II.
Pope John XV. denounced these proceedings as uncanonical,
and ordered another council to meet and reconsider the judg-
ment. The bishops assembled accordingly at Chelles, and
resolved that the former sentence must be confirmed; declar-
ing, moreover, that they regarded as null and void whatever the
Pope might ordain in opposition to the decrees of Councils.”
Upon this the Pontiff held a synod at Rome, annulled the
dorian compilation had by this time
come into vogue in the Western Church,
chiefly, no doubt, in consequence of the
unsettled and anarchical spirit of the
age; for not only was the prevailing
ignorance favourable to the fraud, but
the political state of Europe was such
that the ascendency of Iłome was hailed
on all sides as an element of strength,
and a pledge of security. The false
decretals were incorporated by Gratian
in his Lecretwm ; and as that work ac-
quired paramount authority in the
mediaeval Church, the assumed pre-
rogatives of the Popes were thus placed
upon a footing which few had either
the courage or the learning to dispute.
These documents occasionally find de-
fenders in our own days; not, indeed, as
having been actually written by the
Pontiffs whose names they bear, but as
representing in a general Way the mind
of the Church from the beginning upon
various great principles of discipline.
But if they are admitted to be ficti-
tious, the doctrines they inculcate are
discredited ipso facto; for no man
would embark in such a monstrous
imposture, if the system which he
advocated were already generally re-
ceived in the Church. Moreover, this
plea is refuted by the silence, and
in Some instances by the explicit legis-
lation, of Councils, On the points at
issue.
* “Placuit quoque sanciri, si quid a
Papà Romano contra patrum decreta
Suggereretur, cassum et irritum fieri,
juxta quod Apostolus ait, Haereticum
hominem et ab Ecclesiá, dissentientem
penitus devita. Nec minus abdica-
tionem Arnulfi et promotionem Gerberti,
prout ab eis Ordinatae et peractae essent,
perpetuð placuit sanciri, juxta quod in
canonibus Scriptum habetur, synodo
provinciali statutum a nullo temerè
labefactandum.”—Richer, Histor., Lib.
iv. c. 89, ap. Pertz., Monwment. German.,
tom. iii.
INTROD. GERBERT AND ARNULF, 43
deposition of Arnulf and the appointment of Gerbert, and ex-
communicated all the bishops who had taken part in those acts,
including Gerbert himself. The French prelates, instigated by
Gerbert, set at nought the sentence of interdict; and Gerbert
indulged on the occasion in grossly insubordinate and abusive
language against the Pope. John XV., Toused into energy, sent
a legate into France, who held a council at Mouson in 996, *
when Gerbert was suspended from his archiepiscopal functions,
until sentence should be definitively passed upon him at a future
council convoked at Reims. Hugh Capet, who had warmly
supported Gerbert, died at this juncture; and the loss of his
patron seems to have determined the archbishop to relinquish
the contest. He absented himself from the Council of Reims,
and that body, under the dictation of the Pope's legate, pro-
nounced his deposition from the see, and replaced Arnulf in his
former dignity, cancelling the proceedings against the latter
prelate, on the ground that a bishop could not be condemned
without the consent of the Pope. This exposition of the existing
discipline was apparently correct in the case of a metropolitan.
On the other hand, if an accused prelate agreed to accept his
episcopal brethren as his judges (which Arnulf seems to have
done), he thereby forfeited the right of appeal to Rome, and
the verdict of the provincial court was final. - --- -
This whole case is much embarrassed by the political
intrigues and rivalries which prevailed at the time. Arnulf
represented the dethroned Carlovingians; Gerbert was the
partisan of the Capetian family, who had just succeeded to
power. So long as Hugh Capet lived, the Gallican bishops were
resolute in asserting their synodical rights, and in protesting
against attempts to subvert them by the introduction of rules
of discipline hitherto unheard of; and Arnulf, accordingly,
was kept in prison, while Gerbert Occupied the archiepiscopal
throne. But no sooner had the crown descended to King
Robert on the death of his father, than he entered into a secret
* Concil. Mosomense., Labbe, tom. ix.
p. 747.
f See his act of submission in Richer,
Histor., Lib. iv. c. 72: “Siguinum
Archiepiscopum, &c., constitui milli
judices delictorum meorum, et puram
ipsis confessionem dedi, quaerens reme-
dium poenitendi et Salutem animae meae,
ut recederem ab officio et ministerio
pontificali, quo me recognosco esse in-
dignum.” The canon, “Ab electis ju-
dicibus provocare non licet,” dates from
the fifth Council of Carthage, A.D. 407.
(Caus. II, Qu, vi. c. 30).
44 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
compromise with the Pope, by which he agreed to sacrifice Ger-
bert, provided a dispensation were granted him for his marriage
with Queen Bertha, which was objected to at Rome on the score
of affinity. In consequence of this understanding, the royal
influence was brought to bear upon the Council of Reims, and
this, in conjunction with the powerful pressure exercised by the
legate, produced the change of sentiment in that assembly, by
which Gerbert was displaced and Arnulf re-established. The
transitional character of the epoch, and the feebleness of the
new dynasty, contributed greatly to the success of the Papal
tactics on this and other like occasions. The first Capetian
monarchs were but feudal chieftains, surrounded by a host of
nominal vassals very little, if at all, inferior to themselves in
possessions and authority. To a prince thus situated it was
an object of no common importance to secure the support of
the reigning Pontiff; and not unfrequently it was found con-
venient to purchase it by conniving at acts which were
grievously prejudicial to the rights and welfare of the National
Church. - -
The new principle propounded by Nicholas I. and his successors,
on the strength of the pseudo-Decretals, that no Council was
legitimate unless sanctioned by the Holy See, rendered it neces-
sary to extend largely the system of legations; and this became
one of the most marked features of the Papal policy during the
middle ages. From the eleventh century the legates a latere
were the Ordinary means of communication between Rome and
the provinces of the West; their powers were lavishly augmented,
and all ecclesiastical affairs of any importance passed through
their hands.” They were authorized to convoke Councils through-
out the provinces within their legations; and in these Councils
they presided, taking precedence of the Metropolitan and all
other prelates. They could suspend or depose any bishop who
was bold enough to question their mandates; they might re-
serve to the judgment of the Holy See any point upon which
they could not persuade the provincial synod to endorse their
views. In this way the canonical jurisdiction of the Epis-
copate was virtually superseded. There were instances, doubt-
* Fleury, 4* Discours sur l'Elist. Eccles., No. 11.
f De Marca, Concord, Sac, et Imp., Lib, vi, cap. 30, § 3.
INTROD. PAPAL LEGATES. 45
less, in which the legatine functions were discharged to the
manifest advantage of the Church ; such as that of Hildebrand
(afterwards Gregory VII.), who, being sent to France in that
capacity by Pope Victor II., fulfilled the mission with such ex-
emplary zeal as to effect a complete revival, both doctrinal and
disciplinary, among the clergy of all ranks. Nor is it to be
denied that much was done by this means towards effecting
general unity of ecclesiastical action—an object of essential
moment, if the Church was to hold her own in the great im-
pending struggle against feudal despotism. Nevertheless, the
practice of governing by legates was not established without con-
siderable opposition in France. Sometimes this arose from the
zeal displayed by the Papal representatives in their efforts of
reform, and the severe penalties which they inflicted upon clerical
offenders; as in the case of Hugues, Bishop of Die, legate of
Gregory VII, who deposed the three Metropolitans of Reims,
Lyons, and Sens, for simony, concubinage, and other delinquen-
cies. But more frequently they provoked resistance by over-
straining their authority, and innovating upon the usages of
antiquity. Two of Chartres was more than once brought into
collision with the legate Hugues, Archbishop of Lyons, who held
the office under several Pontiffs in succession. Hugues, on one
occasion, had summoned the Gallican prelates to meet in a general
synod, although Pope Urban II. himself had already presided at
two Councils in France within the same year. Thereupon Ivo
was consulted by the king (Philip I.) as to the lawfulness of such
a proceeding. He replied without hesitation that it was con-
trary to Apostolic institution, and to the received custom of the
Church; and that it was the king's duty, after taking counsel
with the bishops of the realm, to repel such acts of injustice and
oppression.” Again, the same legate refused to confirm the ap-
pointment of a newly elected Archbishop of Sens, except on the
condition that he should previously acknowledge upon oath
the primacy of the See of Lyons, which was a contested point
between the two Metropolitans. The archbishop-elect declining
to comply, Hugues forbade the bishops of the province to pro-
ceed to his consecration. This piece of presumption drew from
Ivo of Chartres a letter full of dignified rebuke. He told the
* Ivon. Carnot., Epist. lvi.; Baron., Ann, ad ann. 1100.
46 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
legate that he and his colleagues entertained profound respect
for the authority which he represented, and were ready to execute
at all hazards the orders of the Holy See regarding the preserva-
tion of the Faith and the correction of morals; but he bade him
beware of imposing obligations as to matters indifferent, to the
prejudice of the canons of the Church and the authorized cus-
toms of the Fathers. He reminded him of the celebrated maxim
of Pope Zosimus, that it is not in the power even of the See of
Rome to ordain anything contrary to the constitutions of the
Fathers, or to make any alteration in them.* The canons, he
observed, contain precise directions as to the mode of con-
secrating a Metropolitan; he was surprised, therefore, at the
attempt to enforce on the new prelate an oath of subjection
to the Archbishop of Lyons as primate, when it was notorious
that no such declaration had ever yet been required, either in
the province of Sens or elsewhere. In conclusion, he exhorted
Hugues to turn his attention to the really important objects con-
mected with his mission; and warned him of the danger and
scandal of contending about trifles, while the weightier matters
of the law are systematically neglected.t
The same high-spirited prelate addressed a stern remonstrance
to Pope Paschal II., who had annulled certain acts of a Gallican
Council upon a representation made by the legate. “Of what
use will it be,” he asks, “to celebrate Councils for the future,
since their judgments, though supported by the gravest weight
of authority, are liable to be reversed at any moment on the
complaint of a single individual? Wherefore we entreat your
Holiness to consider carefully the relative advantages and dis-
advantages attending such interference, and to embrace a wiser
policy; so that synodical sentences may not be rescinded except
in extreme cases; and that the apostolic constitutions may be
more scrupulously observed.”f
The excessive amount of power enjoyed by the legates gra-
dually rendered them odious in France, especially to the bishops,
who found themselves almost dependent on the pleasure of these
* Grat. Decret. II. Caus. XXV. Qu. i. antiquitas, cui decreta Patrum Sanxere
cap. 7.—“Contra statuta Patrum con- reverentiam.”
dere aliquid wel mutare nec hujus t Ivon. Carnot., Epist. lxv.
quidem Sedis potest auctoritas, Apud f Ivon, Epist. xcv. (Migne, Patrolog.,
mos enim inconvulsis radicibus vivit tom, clxii.).
INTROD. RESTRICTIONS ON LEGATES IN FRANCE. 47
intrusive functionaries for their continuance in office. Their
luxurious habits of living, their covetousness, their arrogant
demeanour, their corrupt administration of justice, added to the
general aversion they inspired; and by the time of St. Bernard
of Clairvaux, the legatine office had become the source of some
of the most crying evils that infested the Church.” The French
monarchy, in proportion as it acquired strength and stability
under the kings of the “third race,” applied itself vigilantly to
the task of checking these abuses; an object which was success-
fully attained before the close of the fifteenth century. It appears
that, from the first, the legates could not exercise their office
without the express consent of the crown. The Pope ascertained
beforehand that the mission of the proposed legate would be
acceptable to the Sovereign; and the latter, in his turn, made
request to the Pope whenever he desired the presence of a special
envoy from Rome. i No sooner had the constitution acquired
its modern shape, than the Courts of Parliament were charged
with the duty of examining the Papal bulls appointing legates,
and of making such regulations as to the discharge of their func-
tions as might be judged needful to the Security of the realm."
Clauses were inserted by their authority in the act of verifi-
cation of the royal letters patent, which stipulated that the
office of the legate must be executed in conformity with the
canons, the prerogatives and Ordinances of the king, the laws of
the realm, the liberties of the Gallican Church, and the privi-
leges of the Universities. The legate was warned that if any
infraction of these rules should occur, the illegal act would be
treated as null and Void, and that upon complaint being made
to the Parliament, it would be cancelled as “abusif.” In course
* S. Bern. Epist. 290, ad Episc. Os-
Roman Pontiff to appoint legates in
tiensem. Fleury, 4* Discours, No. 11.
any and every quarter of the globe, and
f De Marca, Concord. Sac. et Imp., denounces the heaviest penalties against
Lib. V. cap. 56. De Héricourt, Loia, those who refuse to receive them, plainly
Eccles. de France, Pt. I. cap. 7. implies that this prerogative had been
† Thus Alexander III., when pre- contested. Hence De Marca ascribes
paring to send Archbishop Becket into it to Pope Boniface VIII., who is known
France as legate, with a view to accom- to have insisted strongly on this point
modate matters between him and Henry in his proposed treaty of reconciliation
II., wrote to Louis VII. Soliciting, with with Philip the Fair. In the Codex
considerable earnestness, his Sanction for Juris Canonici it bears the name of John
the step. Baron. Ann., ad ann. 1168. XXII.'
The Decretal “super gentes” (Ea:- § Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles.
travag. Decret., Lib. i. Tit, 1), though | Discip., T. Lib. ii. cap. 219; and II. Lib.
it asserts the absolute right of the i. cap. 52.
48 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD,
of time the following were also laid down as constitutional
maxims in France: That the Pope's legate has no jurisdiction
as an ecclesiastical ordinary; that he may not supersede, nor
in any way disturb, the lawful jurisdiction of metropolitan and
diocesan prelates; that he cannot take cognizance, in first in-
stance, of any cause affecting the clergy; that he cannot cite
before him any of the king's subjects, nor assume any sort of
judicial or magisterial authority over them.” In consequence
of these jealous precautions, the Pontifical legates found them-
selves ere long comparatively powerless. Subsequently to the
reign of Philip the Fair, or at all events from the middle of the
fourteenth century, Gallican synods were but rarely held under
their presidency; while on the other hand Provincial Councils,
canonically celebrated by the Metropolitans and their suffragans,
were frequent during the same period. -
During the troubles of the “great Schism,” the Church of
France distinguished itself by a series of memorable Councils,
the results of which decided the national policy, and, indeed, the
general course of ecclesiastical affairs in Europe, in those dis-
ordered times. It must be remarked, however, that the com-
position of these celebrated assemblies was somewhat irregular;
they were not, strictly speaking, ecclesiastical synods, but rather
gatherings of all the personages most eminent in rank and
authority, both in Church and State. They were convened by
the Crown. The right of suffrage upon the purely religious
questions in debate was assigned to the prelates and clergy; the
decisions at which they arrived were reported to the king, and,
after having received the sanction of the royal council, were
carried into effect by the joint action of the civil and spiritual
authorities. The same mode of procedure was followed at the
great national assembly of Bourges in 1438, which enacted the
second “Pragmatic Sanction.”
The Organic change which practically abolished the Councils
of the Church in France dates from the era of the Reformation.
It appears to have originated in the pecuniary necessities and
tyrannical exactions of the Crown during the “Wars of Re-
ligion.” At the Colloquy of Poissy (December, 1561), the
* Mémoires du Clergé, tom. vii. p. 1424 et seqq. Fleury, Discours sur les
Libertés Gallicanes (Opuscules, tom. iv.).
INTROD. EXACTIONS FROM TEIE CLERGY. 49
clergy entered into an engagement with the Government to pay
the interest of one of the principal public securities—the “Rentes
de l’Hotel de Ville,” for the space of six years ensuing. This
tax, together with an immense addition for other purposes,
having been duly acquitted, the same contribution was imposed
for a further period of ten years; and in the sequel it became a
permanent assessment on the property of the Church, under the
name of the “decime ordinaire.” It was resisted, however, with
considerable spirit, in 1579; when deputies were despatched
from every province and diocese to petition Henry III. to call a
general assembly of the ecclesiastical order for the settlement of
the affair. With much difficulty the king was induced to con-
Sent; and the clergy were summoned to meet at Paris, with an
express proviso that not more than three representatives were to
be elected for each province. They assembled at Melun, and
forthwith proceeded to discuss two questions in which their order
was vitally interested at that day—the promulgation of the
Council of Trent and the revival of free episcopal election.
Their object, doubtless, was to extort concessions from the
Government upon these points, in exchange for any further
Sacrifice of temporalities which it might be in contemplation to
demand from them. They urged their wishes on the king by
repeated deputations, and in most importunate terms; but
altogether without satisfaction. Thus provoked, the Assembly
declared in the name of the clergy that they would no longer be
answerable for the annuities of the Hotel de Ville. Symptoms
of popular irritation followed; the Parliament interfered, and
the clergy were compelled to yield. They agreed to guarantee
the dividends in question for an additional period of ten years;
and, moreover, to pay the king an annual subsidy of 1,300,000
livres for six years. From this date the “General Assembly of
the Clergy of France” was held regularly once in ten years;
and besides the decennial sessions, called “Assemblées du Con-
trat,” an intermediate meeting, the “Assemblée des Comptes,”
took place every five years, for the purpose of auditing the
accounts of the receiver-general. The former consisted of
* So called because the dividends which was to be paid by six equal
were payable at the Hotel de Ville at instalments.
Paris. The amount guaranteed by the f Contin. de Flewry, Liv. clxxv. capp.
clergy was reckoned at 1,600,000 livres; 21, 24
VOL. I. E
50 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
four representatives for each ecclesiastical province, two from
the episcopal and two from the priestly order; making in all
sixty-four members. The deputies of the second order were
ecclesiastics beneficed within the province which elected them.
They had the privilege of being reputed resident on their cures
while attending the assembly, and during the session were exempt
from arrest and civil process. The assembly nominated one or
more of the prelates, being deputies, to act as presidents.
The Assembly of the clergy could not meet but by the king's
command. Commissioners on behalf of the crown were appointed
to open its sitting, and were the bearers of a royal missive
demanding a renewal of the “contrat,” and also the “don
gratuit,” a heavy impost disguised under that ironical name.
The commissioners also communicated to the assembly the
affairs which the king desired to bring under its notice; these
were chiefly matters of external Church policy, which, having
been discussed in the Council of State, were referred to the
clergy for the benefit of their advice. All questions of theology,
however, or of a purely spiritual character, were left to the dis-
cretion of the ecclesiastics themselves.
The question was mooted on several occasions, whether
deputies of the second Order possessed a judicial voice in discus-
sions upon doctrine, or whether their functions were consultative
only,–the decision resting solely with the bishops. This was
at length determined by the Assembly of the year 1700, which
ruled that pastors of the second Order had no right, in virtue
of their ecclesiastical status, to act as judges of doctrine; but
that if their constituents distinctly stated, in the official return,
that they empowered them to take part in such deliberations,
in that case the Assembly would admit the claim. The power,
however, must be conferred in positive terms.”
It is scarcely necessary to point out that these modern con-
vocations of the clergy were by no means equivalent to synods
of the ancient normal type. In the first place, the bishops were
not present as a body, in virtue of their office as rulers of the
Church, but only by a deputation of two of their number for
each province; and the representation of the priesthood was
still more glaringly defective—two deputies only being returned
* Mémoires du Clergé, tom. viii. p. 382.
INTROD. THE ASSEMBLEE GENERALE DU CLERGE. 51
by the parochial clergy of an entire province, and these, almost
invariably, members of the Cathedral Chapters. It is true that
the principle of representation was not unfairly carried out;
since a preliminary meeting was held, called the “assemblée
diocésaine,” at which the beneficed clergy of each diocese nomi-
mated two of their body to act in the “assemblée provinciale;”
and by the votes of the latter the deputies were elected who
were to serve in the “assemblée générale” at Paris. The scanti-
ness of numbers was remedied to some extent by the practice of
applying to bishops, and other persons of eminent station and
merit, not being members of the Assembly, for their advice in
cases of difficulty. This course was commonly taken when the
Assembly was about to pass censure on books containing
heterodox doctrine.”
Again, the subject-matter treated of in these Assemblies was
for the most part of a temporal nature; their principal business
consisted in voting supplies for the service of the Crown, and
apportioning the amount to be raised among the different
dioceses. It was for this reason that the Government per-
mitted them to be held with such unfailing regularity; while
on the other hand, the celebration of provincial synods,-recom-
mended as it was by the immemorial prescription of the Church,
—was, from the sixteenth century downwards, systematically
discouraged, if not prohibited, by the civil authority.
And lastly, although these Assemblies were plenipotentiary,
and could not be appealed from, in all affairs connected with the
taxation of the clerical body, their doctrinal decisions carried
with them no conciliar prestige, and were not regarded as bind-
ing on the conscience of the faithful. They were not empowered
to enact canons; and their manifestos, though received with the
respect inseparable from the position of their authors, by no
means commanded the invariable and universal acquiescence
of the Church.
In the interval between the quinquennial sessions of the
Assembly, the affairs of the clergy were managed by two
officers called “agens-généraux du clergé,” whose functions were
of considerable importance. They were named by the ecclesi-
astical provinces in rotation, and held office for five years. Their
* Mémoires du Clergé, tom. viii. p. 425.
E 2
52 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCEI. INTROD.
duty was to watch over the interests of the Church generally,
and in case of any infraction of its liberties, or other proceeding
tending to its detriment, they were to forward an immediate
complaint to the Crown; for which purpose they were entitled
to claim personal access to the Council-board of the Sovereign.
In any sudden emergency requiring prompt action, the agens-
généraux were authorized to apply to the bishops who might be
in Paris or at the Court, who thereupon held an extraordinary
meeting to determine the course to be taken under the circum-
stances.” These private episcopal conferences were often of
essential service to the Church. They were not recognized by
the State, inasmuch as the prelates assembled on these occasions
were not formally deputed to represent their brethren. Never-
theless the influence of the government of the day was not
unfrequently brought to bear upon them for the attainment
of some political object;-a pressure which could hardly be
resisted. This was instanced very notably at more than one
critical period of the Jansenist controversy. . -
It must not be forgotten, that in addition to these various
forms of synodical and quasi-synodical action, the Church of
France anciently possessed a direct means of making its voice
heard in the national councils. The clergy constituted one of
the Estates of the realm, and ranked first in order of precedence.
As often as the States-General were convoked, the clergy of each
bailliage met, at the summons of the Governor of the province,
and proceeded to elect deputies to represent them in the supreme
legislature. They had the right, in common with the other two
orders, of presenting to the throne a “cahier de doléances,” or
memorial setting forth their views upon any or all branches
of the public administration, and urging their demands of
reformation or redress. Moreover, a certain number of clerical
councillors (conseillers-clercs) were attached to nearly all the
courts of Parliament throughout the kingdom; whose authority
in civil causes was equal to that of the lay magistrates. In
the reign of Philip VI, there were fifty conseillers-clercs in the
Parliament of Paris alone. -
* Mémoires du Clergé, tom. viii. p. 737.
INTROD. JUDICIAL SUPREMACY OF THE CHURCH. 53
W.
THE supremacy of the Church in her judicial capacity—and
indeed the entire system of ecclesiastical polity elaborated by
Gregory VII., and other Pontiffs of like calibre—was accepted
in France for many ages with the same submission as in other
parts of Christendom ; and the clergy shared largely in the
general ascendency which thus accrued to their order. The es-
Sential principles of that system were proclaimed by none with
more clearness and ability than by the great Gallican theologians
of the twelfth century;-such as Geoffrey of Wendome, Hugh of
St. Victor, Ivo of Chartres, Hildebert of Le Mans, and Bernard
of Clairvaux. These writers teach that the temporal power, no
less than the spiritual, is ordained by God; they maintain the
distinction, and the mutual independence, of the two elements;
but they concur in extolling the spiritualty as immeasurably
Superior to the temporalty; and affirm that, in consequence,
the Church must exercise a certain dominant influence over the
whole economy of human government. Some few theorists of
extremeviews (for instance, John of Salisbury, Bishop of Chartres)
went so far as to attribute to the Church, or rather to the Pope,
a direct authority, of Divine right, over the administration of all
temporal affairs.” But the more common opinion reduced it to
an indirect influence, arising from the unquestionable prerogative
of the Church as the instructor and guide of conscience. All
baptized Christians, it was argued, are subject to the control of
the Church in matters of faith and religious duty. The Gospel
is not one thing for the multitude and another perfectly different
thing for monarchs and nobles. The prince, in common with his
meanest vassal, is committed to the pastoral oversight of those
whom Christ commissioned to feed His flock; and it belongs,
therefore, to them to inform and direct his conscience as to the
right administration of his trust. As a Catholic, he is the son
of the Church, not its governor; in things pertaining to religion,
it is his place to be a learner, not a teacher. Such was the
simple basis of a system which, in its organized application to
* See his curious treatise entitled + Decret. I. Dist. xcvi, cap. 11 : “Im-
“Polycraticus,” in the Bibliotheca Pa- peratores debent Pontificibus subesse,
trum (Bigne), tom. xxiii, non præesse.”
54 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
the details of government and the diversified realities of life,
ruled the world for upwards of five centuries.
Though founded on a great and indisputable truth, it became
dangerous at length, by reason of the false deductions which
were drawn from it. For it was inferred that, in case of serious
delinquency in faith or morals, a sovereign was amenable to
corrective discipline; and that, as a last resource, he might be
excommunicated. Now, according to the prevailing belief of
those days, the ban of excommunication carried with it penal
consequences, not only of a spiritual, but of a temporal and civil
nature. A monarch under such an infliction, being cut off from
the unity of the Christian body, was deemed no longer fit to bear
rule over Christians. From this latter fact, then, an extreme
conclusion was arrived at, radically subversive of all monarchical
authority; namely, that if the offender remained stubbornly
impenitent, it was competent to the Pope to absolve his subjects
from their oath of allegiance, and practically to depose him from
the throne.
Nor were these mere theoretical maxims, confined to dry
treatises of theology, to the conventual cloister, or the lecture
rooms of Universities. The world beheld them, in many memor-
able instances, logically reduced to practice. Several Carlovin-
gian princes—Louis le Debonnaire, Lothaire, Charles the Bald
—were dethroned by the authority of Gallican synods; and the
legality of the proceeding was questioned by no man; nay, was
acknowledged by the deposed monarchs themselves.” King
Robert, again, was excommunicated by Pope Gregory W.; Philip
I. by Gregory VII. ; Philip Augustus by Innocent III., who,
moreover, kept the whole of France under an interdict for eight
months. Even the heirs of the Caesars—Henry IV., Henry V.,
Frederick II.-had cause to rue the day when they presumed to
measure themselves against the mysterious theocracy represented
by the Vicar of Christ.
Geoffrey, Abbot of Vendôme and Cardinal, A.D. 1095, is said
to have been the first to point out the mystical significance of
the “two swords” in the Gospel of St. Luke. This fanciful
interpretation Soon became popular with ecclesiastical writers;
* See the declaration of Charles the 859.-Labbe, Concil., tom. viii.
Bald before the bishops assembled at f See Gosselin, Powwoir du Pape aw
the Council of Savonières, or Toul, A.D. Moyen Age, Pt. II. cap. 3.
INTROD. S. BERNARD ON THE TWO SWORDS. 55
and an argument was derived from it which was seriously re-
garded as establishing the supremacy of the Pope over both
worlds, spiritual and temporal. Such is the use made of the
allegory by St. Bernard, in a well-known passage of his treatise
“De Consideratione,” addressed to Pope Eugenius III.” “If any
one should deny that the material sword belongs to you, I think
he cannot have paid attention to the words of Christ, who com-
manded Peter to put up his sword into the sheath. This sword,
then, is assuredly yours, to be drawn at your demand, although
by other hands than yours. If it were not at your disposal,
when the Apostles said, Lord, behold here are two swords, our
Tord, instead of answering, It is enough, would have said, It is
too much. The two swords, then, belong to the Church—the
spiritual and the material. It is for the Church herself to draw
the spiritual sword, by the hands of the sovereign Pontiff; the
material sword is to be drawn in defence of the Church, by the
hands of the soldier, at the solicitation of the Pope and by order
of the prince.” Again, in a letter to the Cardinals who had just
elected Pope Eugenius, Bernard exclaims, “God forgive you !
what have you done? Was there no man to be found of greater
wisdom and experience, who would have been better qualified
for so high an office? In truth it seems ridiculous to choose a
poor creature covered with rags (Eugenius was a Cistertian
monk) to rule over princes, to give laws to bishops, to dispose of
kingdoms and empires. Was this a man to gird on the sword
and execute vengeance on the people—to bind their kings in
chains and their nobles with links of iron P”f
A remarkable statement to the same effect occurs in the
writings of Hugh, Abbot of St. Victor at Paris, another mediaeval
doctor of high repute. Speaking of the two principles of govern-
ment, “the one,” he says, “is called the temporal, the other the
spiritual; both contain different orders and degrees of power;
but on each side they are dependent on a single head, from
which they derive as from their source and root of unity. The
temporal power has for its head the prince; the head of the
spiritual is the sovereign Pontiff. To the royal authority belong
all things which are earthly and connected with the natural
* S. Bern., De Considerat., Lib. iv, cap. 3 (Migne, Patrolog., tom. Clkxxii.).
f S. Bern., Epist, 227, ad Cardinales.
56 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
life; all that is spiritual, all that appertains to the spiritual life,
is placed under the government of the supreme Pontiff. But by
how much the spiritual life is nobler than the earthly, and the
soul than the body, in that proportion the spiritual power exceeds
in honour and dignity that which is earthly or secular. For to
the spiritual power it belongs both to establish the earthly, that
it may exist, and to judge it, if it should act amiss. But the
spiritual power itself is instituted by God alone, and if it should
err, it can be judged by none but Him; as it is written, The
spiritual man judgeth all things, but he himself is judged of no
man.” He then shows from the Old Testament history that the
priestly office was first instituted by God, and the royal authority
afterwards organized through its ministry. “Hence in the Chris-
tian Church the bishops still consecrate kings, both Sanctifying
their power by benediction, and forming it by institution. If then,
according to the Apostle, he who blesseth is greater than him
who is blessed, it follows manifestly that the temporal power is
inferior to the spiritual, from which it receives benediction.”
It was easy thus to define in words the comparative mature
and functions of ecclesiastical and political authority; but, in
practical operation, the system was found to involve insuper-
able difficulties. The spiritual and the temporal are ideas dis-
tinct in theory, but as a matter of experience neither element
confines itself strictly to its proper sphere. Who will under-
take to fix the precise point where the purely spiritual ends
and the purely temporal begins? It is probably impossible,
under any circumstances, that the balance should be maintained
at an exact equipoise. It has been in all ages a history of alter-
nate action and reaction—of aggression and repulse. Nay, even
the theory of the Hildebrandine school is inconsistent with itself;
for, if once it be admitted that the Church, represented by the
Pope, possesses a directive power over the civil ruler, and may
take cognizance of his acts judicially in case of alleged error, the
independence of the two principles, however affirmed in words,
is in fact overthrown. Such a prerogative is capable of indefinite
extension. It may be so exercised as to be a means of perpetual
interference with the ordinary administration of civil affairs; for
what human government is exempt from error? If every instance
* Hugo de S. Vici, De Sacram, Lib. ii. Pt. II. cap. 3 (Migne, Palrolog., tom. 176).
INTROD. INNOCENT III. ON PAPAL JURISDICTION. 57
of mistaken judgment, every act of unwise or unjust policy, on the
part of a civil ruler, were liable to be arraigned and corrected by
the magisterium of the Church, an utter subversion must follow
of the Divinely-ordained scheme of government. The temporal
power would be neutralized and absorbed by the spiritual.
A tendency towards anomalies of this kind was early mani-
fested in the dealings of the Papacy with the great monar-
chies of Europe. For instance, Innocent III., in the year 1199,
attempted to impose his arbitration on the kings of France and
England, under the plea that peace was necessary in order that
they might turn their combined arms against the infidel. On
this occasion the Pontiff explained at length, in a letter to the
Gallican bishops, that he did not pretend to adjudicate dis-
puted questions about feudal rights, but claimed to decide “con-
cerning sin, the censure of which belongs, beyond all doubt,
to us, and we are bound to exercise it in respect of all persons
whatsoever.”” He founds this claim upon the precept of our
Lord, “If thy brother trespass against thee, go and tell him his
fault,” &c. . . . “And if he neglect to hear them, tell it unto the
Church; but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto
thee as an heathen man and a publican.” “I let not the king,
then,” continues Innocent, “account it injurious to his dignity
to submit himself to the judgment of the Apostolic See in this
matter, after the example of Walentinian, Theodosius, and other
illustrious princes. For we do not rely on any human constitu-
tion, but on the Divine law; our authority is not from man, but
from God. No man of Sane mind is ignorant that it appertains
to our office to correct any and every Christian in respect of
mortal sin; and if he should despise our correction, to enforce it
by means of ecclesiastical penalties.” f The right thus insisted
on to pronounce and execute judgment in all cases “in respect
of sin,” gave an incalculable advantage to the ecclesiastical over
the temporal authority. Any intrusion of the lay element into
the spiritual domain was an act of sacrilege—of impious rebellion
against the Divine economy; whereas, on the other hand, the
* See Decretal. Greg. IX., Lib. ii. Tit. Sanae mentis ignorat quin ad officium
i. Cap. 13, Novit. nostrum spectet de quocumque mortali
# “Quilm enim non humanæ consti- peccato corripere quemlibet Christianum,
tutioni, sed Divinae legi potius inni- et si correctionem contempserit, ipsum
tamur, quia potestas nostra non est ex per districtionem ecclesiasticam coer-
homine sed ex Deo; mullus qui sit cere.”
58 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
Pope possessed the means of exercising, though indirectly, un-
limited jurisdiction in things temporal; he might interpose in
the concerns of civil government as often as he judged it neces-
sary either for the personal welfare of the sovereign or for the
general interests of the Church. This extraordinary system—
which in the great war of Investitures had triumphed over the
combined antagonism of the proudest dynasties of Europe—was
destined to receive its death-blow in France. The crisis arrived
in the opening years of the fourteenth century. The events
which then occurred were of extreme gravity, not only as regards
the history of the relations between Church and State in France,
but as practically decisive of the entire question between secular
and Pontifical authority throughout the world.
Philip the Fair and Pope Boniface VIII., the principal com-
batants on this memorable occasion, were well matched, both in
point of ability and resolution; each alike confident of the
justice of his cause; the one no less determined to establish
the independence of his throne and temporal sovereignty
than the other to uphold what he considered the indefeasible
liberties of the Church, and the supremacy of its “magisterium”
over all orders and ranks of Christians.
The Pope, however, laboured under one disadvantage, and it
was fatal. The principles for which he strove were indeed the
very same that his predecessors, Gregory VII., Alexander III.,
Innocent III., Innocent IV., Gregory TX., had illustrated with
such marvellous success. But the times were not the same; the
tide of public feeling had turned, and was setting powerfully in an
opposite direction; and whereas the decrees of former Pontiffs
had been accepted with unreasoning Submission, Boniface was
destined to be met by reckless criticism, insolent rebuke, and
even by vindictive violence. Moreover his personal character
was unhappily such as to aggravate the difficulties of his situa-
tion. Arrogant, irritable, peremptory, headstrong, his every
movement fanned the flame of strife, and infused into it a bitter-
mess which forbade the hope of accommodation. Such has been
the case repeatedly in the most eventful conjunctures of the
world's history. Inability to read the signs of the times, want
of tact, want of calm judgment, of moderation, of perception of
the proper moment, manner, and limits of concession,-these are
faults which have proved the ruin of empires quite as often as
INTROD. BONIFACE VIII. AND PHILIP THE FAIR. 59
misdeeds of deeper dye; and it was through such faults that the
vast fabric of Roman supremacy in things temporal was shaken
to its centre by the despotic monarchy of France.
With regard to the original ground of quarrel, Philip was
clearly in the wrong; for his favourite tax, the “maltöte,” having
never been sanctioned by the Pope, could not be imposed upon
the clergy according to the existing provisions of the law.” In
condemning this irregular proceeding, then (by the bull “Clericis
laicos”),t Boniface did no more than enunciate a principle which
was confessedly in force, although it had been repeatedly violated
in practice. But the tone and language which he employed in
doing this were so extravagant, that the King could hardly
recede without compromising his dignity. He persisted, there-
fore, in asserting his right, as a matter of principle, to tax the
clergy; but he argued a priori, as if there had been no legislative
enactments in existence on the subject. “The kings of France,”
he said, “ have always possessed the power of taking necessary
measures for the defence and preservation of the realm against
its enemies. The Church does not consist of the clergy only,
but of the laity also. Christ purchased freedom from sin and
from the yoke of the ancient law for clergy and laity alike;
and therefore the clergy have no right to appropriate to them-
selves exclusively that liberty which belongs to the whole
Christian body. Special privileges have indeed been granted
to the ministers of the Church by the Popes, at the instance or
with the consent of secular princes; but such privileges cannot
* The third Lateran Council, A.D.
1179, prohibited the lay magistrate
from assessing on the Church or her
ministers any portion of the fiscal or
municipal duties levied upon other
citizens (Labbe, Comcil., tom. X.) This
was confirmed by the fourth Lateran
Council in 1215, which, however, per-
mitted the clergy to make Voluntary
contributions for State purposes, with
the previous approbation of the bishops
and of the Pope (Can. XLIV., Labbe,
tom. xi. See also the Decretal of
Alexander IV., “Quia nonnulli,” Lib.
iii. Tit, xxiii. cap. 1). Corresponding
enactments were made by many pro-
vincial Synods. Cf. Thomassin, Vet. et
Nov. Eccles. Discip., III. Lib. i. cap. 42.
Nevertheless, a large proportion of the
national revenue was derived in process
of time, under one pretext or another,
from the clergy; insomuch that the
payment of “decimes” became an an-
nual charge upon their incomes in
France. Yet this was presumed in all
cases to be spontaneous, an act of libe-
rality and bounty suggested by the
authorities of the Church herself; nor
could it be enforced without the ex-
press consent of the episcopate.
f Feb. 24, 1296. This bull is in-
serted in the Corpus Juris Canonici,
Seat. Decretal., Lib. iii. Tit. xxiii, cap.
3. It was revoked by the Council of
Vienne under Clement W. in 1311. Sce
Clement., Lib. iii. Tit. xvii., “De im-
munitate Ecclesiarum.”
60 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
deprive the sovereign of what is indispensably required for the
good government and integrity of his dominions. The clergy
are subjects of the crown, members of the body politic, like other
men; and are in consequence bound to contribute towards its
preservation. It is contrary to the law of nature to excuse them
from this obligation, while they are permitted to waste the pro-
perty of the Church in luxuries of dress and equipage, in banquets
and other worldly vanities.” These were truths undeniable in
themselves, but inconclusive in the case in hand; for it was
a notorious fact that the clergy were not, with respect to liabi-
lity to State taxation, on the same footing with other classes;
that they were exempted from it by long continued usage, resting
on the canons of Councils, which had been recognised and con-
firmed by the State itself. The gist of Philip's argument was,
that they ought not to enjoy such exemption; in other words,
that the legislation of past ages was mistaken, and required
amendment. His object was to make a radical change in the
system as it stood; to do away with all distinction between
clergy and laity, so far as concerned the duty of replenishing
the public exchequer. This might be a politic enterprise in the
interest of royalty; but it was one which the Pope, from his
point of view, might not unfairly resist.
Moved, however, by the representations of the Archbishop
of Reims and his clergy, who anxiously deprecated a collision
between the Church and the civil power,” Boniface, in a second
bull;t put forth a conciliatory explanation of the first. His
prohibition, he said, was meant to apply to compulsory imposts,
not to voluntary contributions. It did not include, again, the
customary payments due from bishops and other ecclesiastics
in respect of their temporal fiefs held under the Crown. Nor
did it touch the case of a great and sudden exigency, when
all the resources of the kingdom were required to repel the
invasion of a foreign foe. These concessions, though some-
what tardy, were graciously received by Philip; he expressed
himself satisfied, and the misunderstanding was apparently at
an end. -
But a fresh breach was occasioned not long afterwards by the
* See the “Supplicatio facta Papae per Archiepisc. Remems. et suffraganeos
suos,” Dupuy, Prewves, &c., i. p. 26.
+ “Ineffabilis amoris,” Feb. 7, 1297.
INTROD. BERNARD DE SAISSET. 61
affair of Bernard de Saisset, Bishop of Pamiers; and here the con-
sequences were more serious. Boniface had erected Pamiers,
heretofore a convent of Canons Regular, into an Episcopal See ;
and had nominated Bernard de Saisset the first bishop, by his
own sole authority, without consulting with the Metropolitan of
the province, or the king. This proceeding Philip allowed to
pass in silence. The new prelate, an ambitious, violent man,
assumed the temporal lordship of Pamiers, to the prejudice of
the Comte de Foix, to whom it had been granted by the Crown.
Finding the Count too strong for him, he sought assistance from
the Pope; and Boniface appealed to Philip to support the re-
fractory bishop against his lawful superior. It is not surprising
that the monarch declined a request so totally opposed to all the
principles of feudalism. Upon this Boniface proceeded, in a
spirit of singular bad taste and gratuitous insolence, to appoint
Saisset, whom the king could not but regard as a rebellious
vassal, his legate or nuncio at the court of France. In this
quality it appears that Saisset was guilty of offensive and
even treasonable language against Philip ; who, losing patience,
caused the bishop to be suddenly arrested, and committed to
the custody of his Metropolitan, the Archbishop of Narbonne.
A special envoy, Pierre Flotte, was then despatched to Rome,
to demand that the prisoner might be forthwith degraded
from the episcopal office and stripped of every privilege be-
longing to the clerical order, so that the king might cause
justice to be done upon him by the Secular arm, as an incor-
rigible offender.
Philip damaged his cause by these precipitate acts. To arrest
the Pope's nuncio was a violation of the law of nations, to say
nothing of the acknowledged privileges of the clergy; and what
could be more palpably unjust than to summon the Pope to
degrade his own representative, upon a mere Vague charge un-
substantiated by proof? Boniface was fully justified in resisting
the demand; and had his resistance been conducted with mode-
ration, there is reason to believe that it would have terminated
in his favour. As it was, he allowed himself to be hurried by
resentment into a series of measures which, after exposing him
to unparalleled indignities, at length brought his life to a
pitiable close.
On one and the same day, December 5, 1301, the angry
62 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. - INTROD.
Pontiff despatched five separate bulls or rescripts to France.
The first contained a request or command to Philip to set the
Bishop of Pamiers immediately at liberty, to restore to him
all his possessions which had been seized on his arrest, and
to permit him to proceed freely to the Pope's presence at
Rome. This document was not intemperately worded, though it
intimated that the king had incurred the sentence of excom-
munication by laying violent hands upon a bishop. But it was
accompanied by others couched in a more trenchant style. By
the “Salvator mundi,” Boniface revoked all the privileges which
he had granted to Philip (such as the “regale” in certain
churches, “decimes” to be levied on the clergy, &c.), alleging
that they had been scandalously abused. The “Ausculta, fili,”
commenced with an unqualified assertion of the subordination
of the temporal authority to the spiritual. “God has set me,
though unworthy, above kings and kingdoms, having imposed
upon me the yoke of Apostolic servitude, to root out and
to pull down, to destroy and to throw down, to build and to
plant, in His name. Wherefore let no man persuade you
that you have no superior, or that you are not subject to the
supreme head of the ecclesiastical hierarchy. He who thinks so
is a madman, and, if he persists in his error, is convicted as an
infidel.” The Pope then enters on an elaborate detail of his
complaints against Philip. “Although it is certain that the
nomination to all benefices belongs to the Pope,” and that you
can have no right to any such patronage without the consent of
the Holy See, you oppose our collations, and claim to act as
judge in your own cause. You drag before your tribunals the
bishops and other clergy of your kingdom, both regular and
secular, even for matters concerning property which they do not
hold from you in fief. You exact from them tenths and other
imposts, although laymen have no authority whatever over the
clergy. You hinder the bishops from employing the spiritual
sword against Offenders, and from exercising their jurisdiction
over conventual houses. You observe no moderation in disposing
of the revenues of vacant episcopal sees, which you call, by an
abuse, the ‘droit de régale.’ You squander these revenues, and
* This sweeping assumption seems to have been first made by Pope Cle-
ment IV, in 1267. See Seat. Decretal, Lib. iii. Tit. iv., “De praebendis et
dignitatibus,” cap. 2.
INTROD. PEIILIP CONWOKES THE ESTATES. 63
then turn into plunder what was intended as a means of preserv-
ing them intact.” He announces, in conclusion, that, out of
pastoral solicitude for his soul's health, and for the reputation
of a kingdom which is dear to him, he has summoned the
archbishops and bishops, the abbots, and Superior clergy of
France, to appear before him at Rome, that he may there
deliberate upon the affairs of his realm with persons devoted to
its interests, and whom he (the king) could have no reason
to suspect.
The bull convoking the French prelates and clergy to assemble
in Council at Rome was expedited on the same day.
The “Ausculta, fili,” convinced Philip that the real drift
of the Pope's policy was nothing less than to destroy the sub-
stantive reality of monarchical power; and that he must either
prepare to fight the battle to the last extremity, or consent
to hold his crown as a dependency of the Holy See. He took
his measures with characteristic vigour. He caused the Nuncio,
Jacques des Normands, who had brought the obnoxious bulls to
France, to be conducted under a guard to the frontier, in com-
pany with the Bishop of Pamiers, whom he banished for ever from
the realm. The “Ausculta, fili” (or, as some historians think,
an abridgment of it, expressed in still more insulting terms) * was
publicly burnt at Paris. And lastly, on the 10th of April, 1302,
the king held a grand Parliament, or meeting of the three estates
of the kingdom, in the cathedral of Notre Dame, and frankly
asked the advice of his people in the critical state of his relations
with the Holy See. Was it their opinion that the sovereign was
subject to the Bishop of Rome, not only in spirituals, but as to
the conduct of his temporal government P Was the kingdom of
France an independent monarchy, or was it held in feudal vassal-
age from the Pope P To this question the nobles and the deputies
of the commons responded, with unanimous enthusiasm, that
the crown was held of God alone, and that they were ready to
Sacrifice both property and life rather than submit to the out-
rageous usurpations of Pope Boniface, even if the king himself
were not disposed to withstand them. The clergy, however,
* See H. Martin, Hist, de Fr., tom. iv. bull for circulation in France, for the
p. 429. This “ smaller bull” was in sake of inflaming the popular resent-
all probability not from the hand of ment. Guettee, Hist. de l'Egl. de Fr.,
Boniface, but substituted for the genuine tom. vi. p. 249.
64 - THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
hesitated. They were not incapable, as they had often shown,
of resisting the unconstitutional claims and exactions of the
Popes; but on the other hand, they entertained no small appre-
hension of the despotic character of Philip, and shrunk from
the prospect of a struggle which might possibly end in a violent
severance of the National Church from the centre of unity. At
first they endeavoured to evade a direct reply ; urging that the
Pope's language had been misunderstood, and that he by no
means intended to assume any supremacy in things temporal over
the Crown and Government in France. This explanation, how-
ever, was not accepted; and such was the prevailing exaspera-
tion against Boniface, that the representatives of the clergy
were constrained at length to give in their adhesion to the votes
of the other two orders. They entreated the king to allow them
to proceed to Rome according to the Pope's citation; but this
was positively refused. They then addressed a pathetic letter
to the Pope, to acquaint him of the imminent danger of a schism
between France and Rome, and of a rupture between the clerical
order and the people. “The laity shun us,” they said, “and
exclude us from their society, as if we sought to betray them.
They despise the censures of the Church, by whomsoever pro-
nounced, and use every precaution to make them ineffectual.
In this extremity we have no resource but to appeal to your
prudence; and we implore you, with tears in our eyes, to
preserve the ancient union of the Church with the State, and
to consult our safety by revoking the orders you have sent us to
repair to your presence.” Boniface, in reply, rebuked them
for their pusillanimity in yielding to the dictation of a tyrannical
prince and his council, and threatened them with punishment if
they disobeyed his summons to Rome. “To deny the subjection
of the temporal power to the spiritual,” said he, “and to assert
that they are independent powers, is nothing less than to set
up two contradictory principles, like the Manichean heretics.”
An attempt was now made to adjust the quarrel by means of
negotiation and mutual explanation. Four French prelates
were despatched to Rome for this purpose. The Pope, receiving
them in full consistory, expatiated in a bland and conciliatory
tone on his anxious desire to preserve the harmony which had
existed in all ages between the realm of France and the Apos-
tolic See, To pretend that he had ever laid claim to any
$
65
INTROD. PAPAL AIJTEIORITY OWER THE CONSCIENCE.
superiority over Philip as to temporal jurisdiction was, he de-
clared, a malicious falsehood, invented by Pierre Flotte for his
own wicked purposes. He had never advanced any such sense-
less opinion, well knowing that the power of temporal and of
spiritual government are alike ordained of God. “At the same
time,” continued Boniface, “the King cannot deny that he owes
Submission to the Roman Pontiff in respect of Sin”* (ratione
peccati).
This phrase, “in respect of sin,” so frequent in the mouths
of the Popes of the middle age, contains the key to their whole
line of policy with regard to the question in dispute. It is true
that they did not claim any direct jurisdiction over princes as
to their administration in things temporal; but indirectly, in
virtue of their functions as supreme directors in matters of con-
Science, their pretensions amounted nearly, if not altogether, to
the same thing.f Kings, in common with all other Christians,
were responsible to the Church “in respect of sin”—that is, in
respect of her right to guide the conscience. Upon this plea it
is obvious that the Pope might claim to arbitrate in any and
every case within the range of human action. It belonged to
him to judge how far, under any given circumstances, the parties
concerned had incurred the guilt and penalties of sin. The keys
of the Kingdom of Heaven were in his custody; it was for him
to bind or to loose, to condemn or to absolve, according to his
view of the requirements of due spiritual discipline. As a
dogma of the Catholic Church, this was incontestable in the
abstract; the existence of such power was universally admitted,
and was believed to reside essentially in the person of the Pope.
But its application, with reference to limits, method, and detail,
was a matter of infinite delicacy and difficulty. The Pope might
exaggerate, misconstrue, or abuse this power; and if he should
* Cf. De Marca, De Comcord., Lib. iv.
cap. 16, § 4.
f Even the Gallican Gerson main-
tains, in this sense, the full extent of
the Pontifical prerogative. “We do not
affirm that kings and princes hold their
dominions from the Pope and the Church,
So that the Pope is supreme over all in
point of civil and judicial administra-
tion, a pretension wrongly ascribed by
Some to Boniface VIII. Nevertheless,
WOI. I.
all men, including princes, are amenable
to the Pope, in so far as they may abuse
their temporal jurisdiction by offences
against the law of God and nature :
and this supremacy may be called a
directive and Ordinative power rather
than civil or judicial.”— Gers, Serm. de
pace et whidne Gràcorum, Opp., tom. ii.
p. 147. Cf. Fénélon, De Summ. Pont.
Auctor., cap. 27.
66 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
do so to an exorbitant or scandalous degree, a hostile reaction
was sooner or later inevitable. The elements of such a reaction
had long been in course of preparation both in France and else-
where; and the actual outburst was merely a question of time.
The French envoys failed to obtain any concession from
Boniface as to the convocation of the Council at Rome. It was
held accordingly at the time appointed; and was attended, in
defiance of the King's prohibition, by four archbishops, thirty-
five bishops, and six abbots, of the Gallican Church. Imme-
diately afterwards appeared the famous constitution, “Unam
sanctam” “—a document which in style and language was in-
sufferably provoking, although in point of doctrine it contained
nothing that had not been repeatedly advanced before, and
expressed, indeed, the common belief of Catholics at that day.
It commences by asserting the unity of the Church as the body
of Christ, and that it is governed under Christ by St. Peter and
his successors. Then follows a quotation of the well-worn passage
from St. Bernard, concerning the “two swords” and their
mutual relations.f The Bull goes on to state that it belongs
to the spiritual power to establish the temporal, and to judge it
if it fails in its duty; according to the words of the Almighty
by the prophet, “Behold, I have set thee over nations and king-
doms,” &c. f. When the temporal power errs, it must be judged
by the spiritual; when an inferior spiritual power transgresses,
it must be judged by its superior; but if the Supreme authority
shall be in fault, it is accountable to God alone; it cannot be
reached by human judgment, as the Apostle testifies—“He that
is spiritual judgeth all things, yet he himself is judged of no
man.” $ This authority is not human, though exercised by
human hands; but rather Divine, having been divinely granted
to Peter and his successors in the words, “Whatsoever thou
shalt bind on earth, &c. Whosoever resists the authority which
* Eatravag. Commun., Lib. i. Tit.
viii. cap. 1, “De majoritate et obe-
dientiá.”
f See supra, p. 55.
† Jeremiah i. 10.
§ This is a literal citation from
Hugo de S. Victor, De Sacram. Lib. ii.
p. 2, cap. 4: “Spiritualis potestas ter-
renam potestatem et instituere habet,
ut sit, et judicare, si bona non fuerit;
jpsa verö a Deo primum instituta est;
et cum deviat, a Solo Deojudicaripotest,
Sicut est Scriptum, Spiritualis homo
dijudicat omnia et ipse a nemine judi-
catur.”—1 Cor. ii. 15. The famous canon
“Si Papa" (Dist. 40, cap. 6) incul-
cates the same doctrine, expressly ex-
cepting, however, the case of a Pope
guilty of heresy: “Cunctos judicaturus
a nemine est judicandus, nisi depre-
hendatur à fide devius.”
INTROD. IBULL “ UNAM SANCTAM. * 67
God has thus constituted, resisteth the ordinance of God. To
deny this is nothing less than the Manichean heresy of two co-
ordinate principles. Wherefore we declare, define, and pro-
nounce, that it is necessary to the salvation of every human
being to be subject to the Roman Pontiff.” This conclusion
was not so formidable, after all, as might have been expected
from the premises. From such an unqualified statement of the
subjection of earthly authority to spiritual, the Pope might have
drawn the inference that civil rulers are answerable to the
Church, and to the judgment of its head, for the entire conduct
of their ordinary government. Instead of this, he contents him-
self with a general declaration of the necessity of obedience to
the Apostolic See—a sentiment which in that age was disputed
by no man, but to which, nevertheless, different individuals
began to attach different meanings.
The bull “ Unam Sanctam” was followed by a sentence of ex-
communication against all persons, of whatever degree, who
should molest, despoil, or impede those who desired to proceed
to or return from Rome. This was, of course, directed against
Philip, although it did not designate that prince by name. He
had seized and confiscated the property of the bishops who chose
to obey the Papal summons contrary to the commands of their
temporal sovereign.
Philip replied to these denunciations by holding a second
great Council on the 1st of December, 1302, when it was enacted
that no French subject could leave the kingdom without the
King's consent, under pain of imprisonment and forfeiture of
goods; and a renewed prohibition was published against export-
ing from France money, jewels, horses, and munitions of war.
The crisis was evidently at hand. But before resorting to
extremities, Boniface sent the Cardinal Le Moine, by birth a
Frenchman, as his legate to Philip, charged to make certain
propositions by way of satisfaction to the Apostolic See. The
following were the principal articles insisted on —That the
Ring should revoke his prohibition to the clergy to proceed to
Rome; and should acknowledge that the Pope has the right
to nominate to all benefices, to dispose of their revenues, and to
levy duties upon them. He was further to own that no sove-
reign can lawfully seize the property of the Church, nor summon
ecclesiastics to lay tribunals, either in personal actions or in
F 2
68 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
regard to estates which were not held of him in fief. Moreover,
he was to engage to correct the prevalent abuses of the droit de
regale, and to preserve the revenues of vacant churches for the
future incumbents. He was to remove all hindrances to the due
exercise of ecclesiastical discipline. He was to repair the evil
which he had committed by debasing the coinage of the
realm; and, finally, he was to treat the city of Lyons and its
territory as independent of the crown of France. It was not
likely, and probably was not expected, that a prince of Philip's
imperious temper would accept such terms in their full extent.
He replied, however, in a tone of moderation. It was from no
want of respect for the Church that he had forbidden the pre-
lates to quit France, but simply by reason of circumstances
which appeared to him of a dangerous nature. He was willing
to restore the property of those who had gone to Rome without
his permission. Far from wishing to obstruct the liberty of the
spiritual sword, he was prepared to support it, so long as it
observed the bounds of law and established usage. If any of
his officers had abused their powers in this respect, he was ready
to punish them and to rectify their mistakes. If any one had
been wronged in the administration of the droit de regale, he
offered to satisfy him by reimbursement. With reference to the
disposal of benefices, the seizure of temporalities, and the cita-
tion of ecclesiastics before the civil courts, he had followed, and
would always follow, the customs generally received in the realm.
As to the alterations in the coinage, he had been forced to adopt
them by the necessities of the State, but he had already taken
steps for remedying the evils caused by that measure. Finally,
he declared himself sincerely desirous to maintain the ancient
union between the Roman See and France, and he entreated the
Pope not to imperil it by attacking the liberties and privileges
of the Gallican Church. - - - g -
We have in this last sentence one of the earliest symptoms
of that wilful misapprehension of the “Gallican liberties,” which
became in the sequel so convenient an instrument of royal des-
potism. The faults of Pope Boniface were neither few nor
Small. He might have been justly accused of striving to exalt
the dominion of the spiritual power to a pitch incompatible with
the rights and functions of the crown; but certainly he was not
chargeable with seeking to abridge the liberties of the Church,
INTROD. PEIILIP IMPEACHES BONIFACE. 69.
as they were then established by general usage. It was the
Ring, not the Pope, who was labouring to extinguish the immu-
mities immemorially enjoyed by the ecclesiastical order. The
“liberty of the Church,” in the sense in which it was invoked
by Philip and other subsequent monarchs of like character,
signified in reality that the clergy, instead of being as heretofore
dependent on the Pope, were to be practically subject to the
crown. In the very act of redressing grievances arising from a
jurisdiction which, though wrongly exercised, was in its essence
real and true, they substituted for it the yoke of another juris-
diction which had no legitimate foundation whatever.
The professions of Philip may or may not have been made
with perfect sincerity. In any case they ought to have called
forth further exertions on the part of Boniface to effect an
understanding. Instead of this, he now ordered his legate to
excommunicate the king by name; including in the sentence
all nobles, prelates, and magistrates who might support or coun-
tenance him. Philip, unmoved by thunders which had scared
some of the boldest of his predecessors, summoned forthwith his
Council at the Louvre, and caused a formal act of accusation to
be published against the Pope, charging him with having usurped
his office, with heresy, with Simony, infidelity, and other mon-
strous offences. He declared his intention to procure with all
despatch the convocation of a General Council, as the proper
tribunal to take cognizance of so grave a cause, and appealed to
its decision, and that of a legitimate Pope, on the questions in
dispute. The ecclesiastics present, as well as the other two
orders, signified their assent to this impeachment of Boniface,
though they expressed their belief that he would fully clear
himself from the crimes imputed to him. Twenty-six prelates,
with eleven abbots, signed the act of appeal; and no fewer than
nine cardinals concurred in the measure. * .
Boniface repudiated with contemptuous scorn the notion that
he could be arraigned judicially before a General Council.
“What?” he said, “do they demand a Council to sit in judg-
ment on the Pope? No Council can be assembled but by me,
and with me.” Philip, however, urged on by the “legistes,”—
a class rapidly rising into power, and rancorous in its hostility
to Boniface and the Holy See—persisted in his scheme, canvassed
actively for support in Spain and other foreign countries, and
70 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. PNTROD.
sent special envoys to the Italian cardinals to secure their
adhesion and their presence at the forthcoming Council, which
it was proposed to hold at Lyons. Guillaume de Nogaret, one
of the most unscrupulous of Philip's councillors, was charged, or
charged himself, with the task of personally summoning the
Pope to attend at the appointed time and place. In case of
resistance to this mandate, his Holiness was to be forcibly com-
pelled to submit.
Boniface, upon this, retired from Rome to Anagni, and pre-
pared to launch against his adversary that most tremendous
bolt of the Pontifical artillery, a bull releasing Philip's subjects
from their allegiance, and declaring him deposed from the
throne. His kingdom was bestowed upon Albert, King of
the Romans.
This document was to have been solemnly promulgated in
the cathedral of Anagni on the 8th of September, 1303, the
festival of the Nativity of the Virgin. But on the day pre-
ceding, Nogaret, who had prevailed upon the principal citizens
of Anagni to favour his design, entered the town at the head of
300 soldiers, invaded the palace, and presented himself abruptly
before the aged Pontiff, whom he found seated on his throne,
and wearing the tiara and other ensigns of his Apostolic office.
Sciarra Colonna, who accompanied Nogaret, assailed him with
Savage reproaches, and is said to have been brutal enough to
strike him on the face with his iron gauntlet. Boniface was
seized forthwith, and committed to prison, in order, as his captors
said, to ensure his appearance at the Council at Lyons. The
people of Anagni, however, resenting these outrages, rose en
mašše against the French, drove them with severe loss from the
city, restored the Pope to liberty, and conducted him in triumph
to Rome. But his fate approached. At the age of upwards of
eighty, it was scarcely possible that he should rally from the
shock of the violence and barbarous treatment to which he had
been subjected. The iron had entered into his soul. He was
attacked by fever, which produced delirium and frenzy; and
death released him from his sufferings on the 11th of October,
1303.
The opposition excited by the abuse of power, whether spiritual
or temporal, is seldom Satisfied with redressing the particular
grievance from which it arose. When thus far successful, it is
INTROD. POWERS OF THE CHURCH COURTS. 71
commonly impelled forward, and occupies fresh ground; it
advances unjust pretensions, invades established rights, and
becomes in its turn intolerably oppressive. The victory of
Philip over Boniface—the violent recoil of that Pontiff's extra-
vagance upon his own head—was no mere isolated episode of
history; it was a turning point in the constitutional system
of Europe. It was the commencement of a widespread reaction,
on the part of the laity, against ecclesiastical predominance. From
that time forward may be traced a clear and continuous current
of opposition, not merely to the uncanonical encroachments of
the Papacy, but to the rightful independence of the Church,
and the legitimate exercise of its jurisdiction. The uniform
tendency of legislation in France, from the fourteenth century
downwards, was to reduce the Church into subservience and
subjection to the Crown. Under colour of repressing Ultra-
montanism, protecting the Gallican liberties, and reforming
abuses, the State succeeded in transferring to itself nearly the
whole of the external dominion enjoyed by the hierarchy during
the preceding ages,
WI.
THE ecclesiastical courts had acquired extensive powers from
a very early period of history. The Emperor Constantine
authorized the bishops to act as judges in matters affecting
their clergy; and it was declared lawful for lay citizens to
appeal in civil causes (not in criminal) to the episcopal
tribunals; the sentences thus pronounced being enforced by
the State. These provisions were gradually enlarged by suc-
cessive enactments, until at length the administration of justice
throughout the empire was concentrated in great measure in
the hands of the clergy. By the Code of Justinian the bishops
were constituted the legal guardians of Orphans, widows, minors,
lunatics, paupers, prisoners, and generally of all who were com-
prehended in the category of “miserabiles personae.” All
testamentary and matrimonial questions—all matters relating
to bankers, usurers, Jews, Lombards—everything involving
contracts and engagements upon oath—all cases arising out
of the Crusades—the management of hospitals and other
charitable institutions—all charges of sacrilege, perjury, in-
continence, and in short, all proceedings originating in human
72 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
delinquency or sin—were consigned in course of time to the
judicial arbitration of the Church.* f
This vast development of spiritual jurisdiction became a
prolific source of abuse; and it was the work of the four-
teenth and fifteenth centuries to curb and curtail it. An
attempt had been made, indeed, by the feudal aristocracy,
during the reign of St. Louis, to confine the competence of the
episcopal courts to charges of heresy, usury, and matters con-
cerning the Sacrament of marriage. But the reactionary
movement acquired greater force in the time of Philippe de
Valois, as appears from the account of a memorable conference
held in the presence of that monarch in 1329, when the whole
question of civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction was argued
between Pierre de Cugnières, Avocat-General in the Parlia-
ment, on behalf of the Crown, and the Archbishop of Sens and
the Bishop of Autun, as defenders of the Church. : De
Cugnières contended that the spiritual and the temporal power
have each a separate province; that the two jurisdictions cannot
be exercised in conjunction; and that, consequently, the bishops
ought to relinquish the judicial functions incidental to their
rank as feudal lords, and restrict themselves to those belonging
properly to the pastoral office. To this it was replied, by the
Bishop of Autun, that although the two jurisdictions are distinct,
they are by no means incompatible; but may be united in the
same hands, whenever that arrangement may be judged conducive
to the general welfare. He cited various instances from Scripture
in support of this view. The discussion was kept up with spirit
and ability on both sides. The king's advocate exhibited a
catalogue of sixty-six gravamina, or articles in which he alleged
that the ecclesiastical courts had exceeded their powers. The
officials of the bishops, he said, asserted a right to take
cognizance of causes relating to landed property, to the ex-
clusion of the civil jurisdiction. They cited laymen to their
bar even in personal actions, and if the parties declined to
plead, they compelled them by means of excommunication
* Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles. t Raynald, ad ann., 1329. Labbe,
Discip., II, Lib. iii., cap. 87, 110. Concil., tom. xi. Etienne Pasquier,
Fleury, Instit, au Droit Ecclesiastique, Recherches, tom. iii, cap. 33. Fleury,
Pt. III. cap. 1. - H. E., Liv, Xciv.
f Matt. Paris, ad ann. 1247. -
INTROD. GRAWAMINA AGAINST THE BISHOPS. 73
to submit to their illegal proceedings. “If a person excom-
municated for debt fails to pay the sum required by the
sentence, the fine is forthwith augmented, and the secular judge
is enjoined, under spiritual censure, to enforce the payment by
seizure of goods. If he demurs, he is pronounced excommuni-
cate, and cannot obtain absolution except by Satisfying the
whole demand.” Other articles complained that the bishops,
in order to enhance their power, were in the habit of giving the
clerical tonsure to persons manifestly disqualified ;-to children
under age, to married men, to those of illegitimate birth, to
the grossly ignorant, to many who sought the privileges of the
Church merely for the sake of screening themselves from the
just punishment of crime. The episcopal baillis and prevöts,
designedly chosen from the clergy, incurred debt and practised
every kind of extortion with impunity, since there was no means
of bringing them to justice. These officers, whenever they chose
to treat persons as excommunicate, rightly or wrongly, prevented
all men from trading with them, working for them, or holding
any sort of intercourse with them; whence it often happened
that the land remained uncultivated. It was a common case
for twenty, thirty, forty, or more individuals to be brought up
and fined in different amounts for the offence of having associated
with those who lay under the ban of the Church. The Bishop
of Autun manfully combated these charges upon various grounds;
—alleging the provisions of statute law, ancient custom, the per-
mission of the Crown, the Superiority of the clerical order in
legal knowledge and general character. No immediate changes
resulted from this remarkable debate. The king declared that
he had no intention whatever to attack the acknowledged
privileges of the clergy. The bishops assured him that all
well-founded grievances should be redressed without delay;
and they were ultimately dismissed with an intimation that
sufficient time would be allowed for the fulfilment of their
promise, but that, in case of failure to observe it, the king
would be compelled to take the affair into his own hands.”
From this date the aggressions of the civil power upon the
* “Quod dominus Rex exspectaret
usque ad festum Nativitatis Domini
proximè venturum; infra quem ter-
minum, si praelati non emendassent
emendanda et corrigenda, dominus Rex
apponeret tale remedium quod esset
gratum Deo et populo.”—See Memoires
du Clergé, tom. vi. p. 19. -
74. TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. INTROD.
spiritualty became more and more frequent and determined ;
and in course of time all matières profanes were assigned to the
sole cognizance of the royal courts. Gradually, by means of
various subtle distinctions, such as that between “délits com-
muns” and “cas privilégićs,”* the clergy were brought within
the ordinary limits of secular authority. Laymen were for-
bidden to resort to the ecclesiastical judges; and the Crown
assumed jurisdiction in causes affecting the temporalities of the
Church, upon the ground that they constituted a beneficial
interest which was subject to the control of the law of the land,
like any other property.
It was not long before a decisive blow was aimed against the
jurisdiction of the Church in France, by the claim advanced by
the Crown, or rather by the Parliaments, to hold a tribunal of
appeal from the judgments of the ecclesiastical courts. The in-
stitution of the “appel comme d'abus,” as it is called—“appel-
latio tanqwām ab abusw”—subjected all judicial acts of the
officers of the Church to the revision and correction of secular
law. The invention of this expedient has been attributed to the
redoubtable Pierre de Cugnières; at all events it originated early
in the fourteenth century, though a considerable time elapsed
before it became general. The appel comme d'abus, in its most
common acceptation, was a complaint preferred against the
ecclesiastical judge, on the plea that he had exceeded or abused
his legitimate powers. The appeal lay to the Grande Chambre
of the Parliament in civil, and to the Chambre de la Tournelle
in criminal, actions; its effect was that, when admitted by the
court, the case was thereupon heard and adjudged afresh, such
adjudication being final. The authority of Popes and Councils
was alleged in justification of the practice; e.g. that of the great
Lateran Council under Innocent III., which enacted, in its forty-
second canon, that “as the laity are forbidden to usurp the rights
of the clergy, so the clergy must take care not to intrude upon
the privileges of the laity. Wherefore we prohibit all clerks
from employing any pretext of ecclesiastical liberty as a means
* “Delits communs” were offences treason, homicide, “rapt,” &c., with
of a less serious kind, which were left | regard to which the secular judge
to be dealt with by the Church courts. | claimed jurisdiction jointly with the
“Cas privilégićs.” included all crimes | ecclesiastical, and the former gave sen-
attended by public Scandal, such as tence in the last resort.
INTROD. TEIE “APPEL COMME TO’ABUS.” 75
of enlarging their own power at the expense of the Secular juris-
diction.”
The appel comme d’abus was ultimately established as ad-
missible against the Church courts in the four following cases:—
1. When the spiritual power had encroached upon the temporal
jurisdiction. 2. When there was a manifest contravention
of the ancient canons, the liberties of the Gallican Church,
or the ecclesiastical constitutions received in the kingdom.
3. When the ecclesiastical judge had infringed any royal ordon-
nance duly promulgated. 4. When a decision had been given
contrary to the arrêts of the Sovereign courts of Parliament.”
It was ruled, moreover, that the appeal could not be entertained
unless the matter in question was of real importance and evident
public interest; and further, that the abuse complained of must
be patent and notorious. But these restrictions were disregarded
in Subsequent practice. The right of appeal to the Parliaments
was extended indefinitely to matters great and small, and that
upon pretexts transparently frivolous; so that, instead of acting
as a wholesome check on any inordinate stretch of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction, its general tendency was to obstruct that necessary
exercise of discipline without which Church authority is little
more than a name. The clergy in their assemblies made re-
peated remonstrances on this subject to the crown, representing
that the practice led to contempt and hatred of the spiritual
jurisdiction, encouraged vice, shackled and thwarted the admi-
nistration of things Sacred, and overburdened the consciences of
the secular judges.f They also prayed that the cases might be
precisely specified, in which an appeal from spiritual to lay
courts was held allowable; but the reply was always vague and
evasive. They were reminded that circumstances might arise
which were unforeseen and unprovided for; and that conflicts
might occur in consequence between the civil and ecclesiastical
authorities. The French monarchs, it is true, gave injunctions
from time to time to the officers of their courts to beware of
trangressing the bounds of their legal competence in the matter
* Mémoires du Clergé de France, tom. iii. p. 81.
vii. p. 1542, et seqq. Procé8-verbaua, des # See the Cahier presented to Henry
Assemblées du Clergé, tom. i. p. 726. TV. by the Assembly of 1605, Article 26.
+ Richard, Analyse des Conciles, tom. | Memoires du Clergé, tom. vi. p. 118.
76 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. INTROD:
of appeals; but practically, the appel comme d'abus became
the favourite resource of all persons disaffected to the Church,
for the purpose of defeating any attempt to put in force the
regulations of her ancient discipline.
It was a disputed point, whether the appel comme d'abus had
a “suspensive,” or only a “devolutive,” effect; that is, whether
the execution of the sentence appealed against was suspended
during the prosecution of the appeal, or whether it remained in
force, and the case was merely transferred to the Superior court
for a fresh hearing. The general opinion was that with regard
to sentences for the correction of manners and ordinary eccle-
siastical discipline, the appeal had no suspensive force.”
It is to be observed that the appel comme d'abw8 was avail-
able reciprocally as a remedy against the temporal courts, in case
of abuse of power or unlawful intrusion into the province of the
Church. This is laid down by Pierre Pithou in his enumeration
of the “liberties of the Gallican Church;” and De Marca refers
to it as the constitutional method of obtaining redress for any
encroachment of the civil power on the rights of the Church or
of its ministers. Instances are on record of its being exercised
with full effect. An ecclesiastic, if cited before the temporal
court for a matter not legally within its competence, might
demand to have the case sent back to be tried before the bishop's
official; and if this were refused, he was entitled to appeal,
comme d'abus, to the Grande Chambre of the Parliament.
At the Council of Trent the appel comme d'abus was vehe-
mently attacked by theologians of various nations, and was as
pertinaciously defended by the ambassadors of Charles IX. of
France. The result was that it was maintained in full vigour;
and, indeed, it was not to be expected that the Crown, having
once succeeded in establishing so effectual an engine for neutral-
izing the judicial action of the Church, should afterwards be
induced to relinquish it. Accordingly, although the ancient
ecclesiastical jurisdiction in France, like the rest of the mediaeval
organization, was swept away by the torrent of the great Revolu-
* Héricourt, Loia, Eccles. de France, E., capp. 14, 28.
f P. Pithou, Libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane, Article 80. De Marca, De Concord.,
Lib. iv. Cap. 21, § 5. -
INTROD. TEIE “DROIT DE REGALE.” 77
tion, the usage of the appel comme d'abus has survived to our
own times. Proceedings of this kind still take place occasion-
ally before the Imperial Council of State.
In proportion as Feudalism declined, the French Crown
assumed to itself all those rights, prerogatives, and emoluments
connected with the Church, which had previously been enjoyed
by the local seigneurs. The most important of these was the
droit de régale (jus regaliae), which gave to the lay suzerain
the administration of the revenues of episcopal sees while they
remained vacant, together with all the patronage belonging to
them; though this latter was held to apply properly only to those
benefices which had no cure of souls. The régale was a point on
which the kings of France became especially jealous, and which
they vindicated with the utmost energy on many memorable
occasions. It seems to have been fully established in the time
of Philippe le Bel, who gave the following explanation of it in a
letter to the Bishop of Auxerre: “As in the case of the vacancy
of a lay fief, it is legally held by the seigneur, together with its
revenues; and this occupation continues, according to the uni-
versal custom of our realm, until another vassal succeeds, who
may do feudal service in place of the former; so, during the
vacancy of a cathedral church, we and our predecessors have
taken possession both of the temporal jurisdiction and of the
temporal property, the fruits of which belong to us for the time
being. Nor is it only as to the property of bishops that we
exercise this power; we dispose in like manner of the temporal
jurisdiction and revenues appertaining to vacant prebends and
dignities of all kinds.” “
By a famous ordinance of Philippe de Valois, known as “the
Philippine,” the droit de régale was asserted still more dogma-
tically, and made to extend not only to benefices vacant de facto,
but also to those which ought to be vacated de jure; i.e. those which
were held without a legitimate canonical title. This proceeding
called forth strenuous remonstrances from Pope Benedict XII.,
as contrary to all principles of justice and ecclesiastical liberty.
The same Pontiff protested against the misconduct of the royal
officers, who, under shelter of the régale, were accustomed to
* De Marca, De Concord., Lib, viii. cap. 22, § 6.
f Héricourt, Loia, Ecclesiastiques de France, F. vi. No. 15.
78 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. INTROD.
waste, alienate, and destroy the temporal possessions of the
Church, often damaging the vacant benefices seriously and per-
manently.” It is evident, indeed, that by wantonly prolonging
a vacancy, an unscrupulous monarch might easily convert the
droit de régale into an instrument of indefinite spoliation and
oppression. -
VII.
SUCH were some of the vicissitudes to which the Gallican
Church was subjected, in its relations both to the Apostolic See
and to the civil government, down to the middle of the fourteenth
century. The great Schism of the West (A.D. 1378-1429)
formed so critical an epoch in its history, and led ultimately to
consequences so momentous, that it is necessary to examine it
with some minuteness of detail.
This grave calamity is distinctly traceable to the ill-advised
secession of the Popes to Avignon, in the person of Clement W.
That Pontiff is commonly supposed to have obtained the tiara
by means of a simoniacal contract with Philip the Fair, which
bound him, among other articles, to take up his residence in
France. But this account, which rests mainly on the authority
of the Ghibelline historian Villani, has been partially discredited
by more accurate researches in Our Own day; and it seems pro-
bable that the change of residence was made voluntarily, for the
purpose of escaping from the violent contentions which were
raging at the time at Rome between the rival Orsini and
Colonna factions.f Be this as it may, the step was fatal to
the independence of the Papal throne. Having once taken
refuge on Cisalpine territory, Clement could not avoid acting
with more than common deference to the wishes and interests of
the King of France. This was notoriously his motive in the
most important transactions of his reign—in the judicial pro-
* Raynald., Annal., ad ann. 1337;
Fleury, H. E., Liv. xciv.
f See the interesting treatise of M.
Rabanis, Clément V. et Philippe le Bel,
Paris, 1858. The author demonstrates
it to be next to impossible that the
Archbishop of Bordeaux (afterwards
Clement V.) can have held a personal
interview with Philip at S. Jean d’An-
gély, or elsewhere in that neighbour-
hood, at the date usually assigned for
the compact between them. That Cle-
ment owed his election to Philip's in-
fluence, and that he became, as Pope,
the Subservient instrument of that
monarch's purposes, are facts which
admit of no question.
INTROD. THE POPES OF AWIGNON. 79
ceedings against the memory of Boniface VIII., in the ini-
quitous suppression of the Templars, and in his support of the
princes of Anjou in the Kingdom of Naples. Moreover (and it
was upon this that subsequent events chiefly turned) a French
Bope was naturally disposed to create French cardinals; and
prelates of that nation accordingly figured almost exclusively in
the promotions to the conclave during this period. Thus they
formed in course of time a decided majority of the sacred
college. -
The luxury, pride, avarice, and tyranny of the Popes who sat
at Avignon are proverbial in history.” The kings of France
connived at their excesses, and pressed them to remain per-
manently in their new capital; obtaining the more readily, by
this policy, Pontifical Sanction for the exactions and usurpa-
tions which they themselves practised on the National Church.
The general result was a lamentable degradation of the supreme
spiritual authority. Protection and security was all that was
afforded to the Pontiffs ostensibly ; but their real condition for
seventy years was one of splendid vassalage to the French
Crown. º
Bitter were the lamentations poured forth by the Romans
over this “second Babylonish captivity,” and earnestly did they
implore the successor of St. Peter to resume the natural and
only legitimate seat of his primacy. Gregory XI., overcome
by their importunities, returned to Rome in 1377, and died
there early in the following year, mournfully forecasting the mis-
fortunes which were soon to fall upon the Church.
There were at that moment twenty-three Cardinals, of whom
eighteen were Frenchmen. Of these, however, six had remained
at Avignon, and one was absent in Tuscany; so that the actual
conclave by which the Pope was to be chosen consisted of no
more than sixteen members. Nevertheless, if the French had
been united, they might have commanded the election; but
they were divided by a jealousy against the Limousins, to which
province three preceding Pontiffs had belonged. The conse-
* There were, however, some honour-
able exceptions, such as those of Inno-
cent VI. and Urban W.
† Charles V. of France made extra-
ordinary efforts to prevent his leaving
Avignon. The Duke of Anjou, the
king's brother, was despatched at the
last moment to join the French Cardi-
nals in the intrigues by which they
were labouring at all hazards to frus-
trate the Pope's purpose.
80 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
quence was that the minority of the French coalesced with the
Italians, and secured a preponderance. Considerable pressure
was also exercised on the conclave by the magistrates and
citizens of Rome, who clamoured tumultuously for “a Roman
Pope,” or, at all events, for a native-born Italian. It was under
this stress of circumstances that Bartolomeo Pregnano, a Nea-
politan, Archbishop of Bari, was elevated to the Papal chair in
April, 1378, and took the title of Urban VI. But after an
interval of some months the French cardinals, anxious above all
things to retain the Pontifical court in their own land, and
irritated, moreover, by the tyrannical severity of Urban's
government, retired to Fondi in the Kingdom of Naples, de-
clared the former election void by reason of constraint and in-
timidation, and conferred the tiara upon Robert Cardinal of
Geneva, who was immediately crowned under the name of Cle-
ment VII. A deplorable schism ensued. The King of France,
after instituting a lengthened and rigorous inquiry at Rome,
and holding repeated consultations with his prelates and the
theologians of Paris, determined to support Clement, who was
thenceforward recognised by the French as rightful Pope. He
obtained afterwards, chiefly through French influence, the
adhesion of Spain, Scotland, Savoy, and Sicily. The rest of
Europe acknowledged the authority of Urban VI.
It was natural that Clement should fix his abode in proximity
to the most powerful of the Sovereigns who had embraced his
cause. He established himself at Avignon, where he was sur-
surrounded by thirty-six cardinals, almost without exception
French ; and as it was necessary to provide these dignitaries
with revenues befitting their rank, their claims became a burden-
some tax on the ecclesiastical property of the realm. The Popes
of Avignon had laid heavy bands on the endowments of the
Gallican Church, even while they enjoyed the undivided
allegiance of Christendom ; but the evil was vastly intensified
when their jurisdiction was confined to France and some few
neighbouring countries. The system of disciplinary abuses was
now carried to its most scandalous extreme. By means of re-
serves, expectatives, and dispensations, Clement accumulated all
the higher preferments on his own devoted partizans; and the
clergy were shamefully pillaged by multifarious devices in order
to enrich the Pontifical exchequer. The oppressive impost
INTROD. RESULTS ()F TEIE GREAT SCEIISM. 81
called annates, or the first-fruits of benefices, was largely aug-
mented, and enforced with extortionate rigour.” It was assessed
not only on “benefices consistoriaux,” but on all preferments
indiscriminately; and the demand was at last trebled in amount,
the emoluments of three years being swallowed up in succession,
instead of the first year's income only. By this proceeding
incumbents were not unfrequently reduced to absolute want,
and compelled to become vagabonds and mendicants. Another
exaction, that of the “decimes,” or tenths, which was levied
without mercy upon the entire temporalities of the Church, pro-
voked a formidable resistance from the University of Paris. :
It is impossible to describe adequately the profound per-
plexity, dismay, and confusion which arose from this protracted
warfare between the rival vicars of Christ. With regard to the
intrinsic merits of the dispute there was much to be pleaded on
both sides; nor has the Church ever thought fit to decide the
question authoritatively. It is obvious, however, that if either
Pope had been canonically chosen, the other was a mere pre-
tender; and the latter, in that case, was not only himself Schism-
atical, but had involved all his adherents in the guilt and
penalties of schism. The only alternative hypothesis—namely,
that both Popes were alike uncanonical—was still more dis-
tressing; for if so, then the Catholic body possessed no legitimate
visible head—a state of things which, according to the theology
of that day, was so abnormal as to be almost subversive of its
Divine constitution. 3.
It was felt to be imperative that measures should be taken
towards the removal of evils which threatened nothing less
than the total disintegration of organized Christianity in the
West; and the distinction of having inaugurated a practical
movement to that end, which was substantially, if not com-
pletely, crowned with success, belongs without question to the
Church of France. . . . . . . . -
* It appears that the “annatae'' were
first imposed as a permanent tax on
bishoprics and other “beneficia consis-
torialia” by Boniface IX. in 1392. The
custom, however, was not new ; the
first year’s revenue having been exacted
by bishops and other dignitaries from
the incumbents of benefices in their
patronage from a much earlier period.
VOL. I.
See Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles
Discip., III., Lib. ii. cap. 58. -
# See the contemporary Chronique
du Religieux de S. Denis, Liv. ii. cap. 2.
(Documens inedits sur l'histoire de
France.) Also, J. Juvenal des Ursins,
IHistoire de Charles VI,
I Du Boulai, Hist, de l'Univ. de Paris,
tom. iv. p. 533. “,
G
82 THE GALLICAN CHURCTI. INTROD.
The remedy proposed was that of appeal to a General Council,
as the supreme tribunal of Christendom;-competent, should
the necessity arise, to pass judgment even on the Pope himself.
This is commonly quoted as one of the peculiar principles of
Gallicanism ; but in point of fact it is an Original constitutional
law of the Church Catholic. It was not contended, even by the
strictest Gallicans, that the Church ought to be governed, under
ordinary circumstances, by a succession of General Councils;
but that such a legitimate method of final decision existed, and
that the schism was an emergency which justified and necessi-
tated its application. The Church possessed, by the charter of
her Divine foundation, powers which had been granted for the
express purpose of preserving her organic unity; and if she had
hitherto forborne to exercise those powers under the existing
calamity, it was all the more important that they should not be
suffered to fall into further disuse and oblivion, while every day
was adding to the inveteracy of the evils which they were de-
signed to counteract.
The University of Paris—at this time the most celebrated
School of theology in Europe—interposed, and laboured with in-
defatigable zeal to procure the reunion of the distracted Church.
Its Chancellor was Pierre d'Ailly (Petrus de Alliaco), after-
wards Cardinal and Bishop of Cambrai. Its leading divines
were the illustrious Jean Gerson, who succeeded D'Ailly in the
post of Chancellor, Nicolas de Clemangis, Gilles Deschamps,
and Jean de Courtecuisse. The first movements of these ener-
getic reformers were visited with severe censure, and even
punishment, by the corrupt court of Charles VI. One of their
body, a learned professor named Jean Rousse, was arrested and
imprisoned by the Regent, the Duke of Anjou, merely for
having suggested that the only effectual means of healing the
Schism was the convocation of a General Council. His col-
leagues obtained his release with difficulty, and on the express
condition that they would henceforth support the Pope of
Avignon, Clement VII.” So powerful were the ties of interest
which attached the French monarchy to the Cisalpine Pope,
that anything like Scepticism as to Clement's legitimacy was
treated as a serious crime. It was notified to the heads of
* Chron, du Rel, de St. Denis, Liv. ii, cap. 2.
INTROD. EFFORTS OF THE UNIVERSITY OF PARIS. 83
the University that no further mention must be made of the
election of another Pope, or the calling of a General Council,
under pain of the King's signal displeasure. -
D'Ailly and his brethren, nothing daunted, persevered in
their endeavours to pave the way for a pacification; and even-
tually they wrung from the Government a reluctant permission
to summon a special meeting of the whole academical body, to
deliberate on the expedients for extinguishing the schism.
Consultations were held accordingly in the year 1394. The
result was that the plans proposed reduced themselves to the
three following:—1. The voluntary resignation of both Popes;
after which the two colleges of cardinals might unite and pro-
ceed to a fresh election. 2. A compromise by means of arbi-
tration; and 3. The convocation of a General Council, which,
it was argued, would derive from the universal consent of the
faithful irrefragable authority to pronounce judgment under the
circumstances.” The first of these methods—the voie de cession,
—was that preferred by the University. Their views, having
been embodied in an elaborate memorial admirably drawn up
by Nicolas de Clemangis, one of the most accomplished scholars
of his time, was presented by a deputation to the King. Its
contents were likewise communicated to Pope Clement; who
forthwith declaimed against it in full consistory as a “defa-
matory libel on the Holy See, Saturated with the poison of
calumny.” Such was the violence of his agitation that a fit of
apoplexy ensued, of which he died on the 16th of September,
1394.
An attempt was now made to dissuade the cardinals of Avignon
from proceeding to a fresh election; but in vain. Determined
at all hazards to prolong the schismatical succession, they gave
their votes to Pedro de Luna, a man of Overbearing and obsti-
nate temper, who assumed the title of Benedict XIII.
The labours of the Gallican theologians began at length to
bear important fruit. In February, 1395, the king convoked an
extraordinary assembly of prelates, clergy, princes, and nobles, at
Paris, sufficient in numbers and dignity to represent the nation
in Church and State, to discuss the proposals of the University .
as set forth in their Memorial. The Council decided in favour
* Crevier, Hist, de l’Univ. de Paris, tom. iii. p. 114.
G 2
84. - THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
2
of the “voie de cession;” and, in consequence, a distinguished
embassy, including the king's uncles the Dukes of Burgundy
and Berry, and his brother the Duke of Orleans, was dispatched
to Avignon, to tender this unpalatable advice to Pope Benedict.
But after a long course of illusory negotiation, it was found
impossible to persuade the two antagonists to embrace this
mode of settling their differences. Benedict met the remon-
strances of the French court and clergy with coarse abuse and
furious menaces; and after a time, wearied by his perverseness
and duplicity, the Gallican Church took the decisive step of
withdrawing from his obedience.* The royal edict to that effect
appeared on the 27th of July, 1398, and was registered by the
Parliament on the 29th of August following. All the acts of
Benedict were thereby pronounced null and void. Appeals to
the Pope during the “soustraction d'obédience ’’ were to be dealt
with as if the pontifical chair were vacant; they were to be
heard by the Metropolitan, and in the last resort were to be car-
ried before the Provincial Council. Various regulations were
adopted for reviving the ancient forms of election,-for abo-
lishing reservations and expective graces, and for replacing
the collation and institution to benefices in the hands of the
lawful Ordinaries. In short, a restoration was proclaimed of
the primitive franchises and discipline of the Gallican Church.
But the existing crisis of affairs was by no means propitious
to the execution of such wholesome measures, particularly as
regards the re-establishment of free elections. It was found
that the mere act of repudiating the authority of the Pope did
not p80 facto redintegrate the Church in the enjoyment of her
independence. On the contrary, the State took advantage
of the interregnum to extend its sphere of intrusive action
in the domain ecclesiastical ; and the clergy soon discovered
that they had only exchanged the oppression of a spiritual despot
for the still more questionable domination of the civil power.
The nominees of the sovereign and his ministers monopolised
the higher preferments; the Courts Christian were impeded in
the exercise of discipline; the Parliaments assumed a wider
jurisdiction; and the power of the clerical order declined apace.
The “subtraction of obedience,” though adopted after mature
deliberation, was the work of an extreme party, of the doctors of
* Chron. de S. Denis, Liv. xix. cap. 5.
INTROD. FRANCE DEMANDS A GENERAL COUNCIL. 85
the Sorbonne. It was viewed with misgiving and regret by the
more moderate, that is the majority, of the national clergy, who
saw that its inevitable tendency was to weaken and depress the
Church in her relations with the civil Government. Pope
Benedict had been besieged and imprisoned in his palace at
Avignon by the royal forces; and this harsh treatment added to
their dissatisfaction. So strong was the reaction that at length,
through the influence of the Duke of Orleans, supported by
D'Ailly, Gerson, and Clemangis, it was resolved to restore the
allegiance of France to Benedict. This act was proclaimed by
royal edict on the 30th of May, 1403; the Pope having solemnly
engaged, as a preliminary condition, to resign in the event of
the death, abdication, or deposition of his opponent.” He pro-
mised likewise to confirm all ecclesiastical appointments made
during the interregnum ; to summon without delay a Council of
his obedience to treat for the termination of the schism; and
to abide faithfully by the decision of that assembly. The Pope,
however, violated these articles without scruple; fresh opposition
was stirred up in consequence; and at a third great convocation
of clergy (December 21, 1406) the decisive conclusion was
arrived at that it was indispensably necessary to have recourse
to a General Council for the reformation of the Church in its
head and its members. This was followed up by a royal declara-
tion to the effect that, if the unity of the Church were not
restored by the Feast of the Ascension next ensuing, the
kingdom of France would finally renounce both Popes, and
assume a position of neutrality. Upon this the two popes opened
a negotiation, ostensibly with a view to an accommodation by
the method of cession; but their behaviour soon led to the con-
viction that they were secretly leagued together to prolong
the schism. An act of inconceivable rashness on the part of
Benedict, who launched a bull threatening the University and
the whole realm with interdict and the king with deposition,
produced a burst of vehement indignation in France; where, in
* Chrom, de S. Denis, Liv. xxiv. cap. Supreme Pontiff, or to legislate on
5. These proceedings were not allowed
to pass without censure in several
quarters. The University of Toulouse
addressed a strongly Worded remon-
strance to the king, urging that neither
the State nor any national Council
were entitled to sit in judgment on the
matters affecting the general admini-
stration of the Church. An OEcu-
menical Council was the only authority
competent to entertain such questions.
Raynald, Annal. ad ann. 1403, tom.
viii. p. 108.
86 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
August, 1408, the Government published a second withdrawal of
obedience, abandoning the “voie de cession” as hopeless, and
declaring itself in a state of neutrality until the meeting of the
General Council, which had been convoked at Pisa by the two
colleges of Cardinals for the spring of the following year.”
On this occasion the French Church carefully renewed its
regulations of internal discipline to be observed during the sus-
pension of intercourse with the Holy See. The different grades
of appellate jurisdiction were precisely defined. From the Arch-
deacon the appeal lay to the Bishop ; from the Bishop to the
Metropolitan; from the Metropolitan to the Primate, or (where
no primatial authority was recognized) to the Provincial
Council. Each Metropolitan was to assemble the Council of his
province every year; its duration was never to be less than a
month. Free election was to be the rule for all dignities which
by their nature or by ancient institution were elective. The
election of Bishops to be confirmed by the Metropolitan; that of
metropolitans by the Primate or the Provincial Council. Other
articles prescribed the mode of proceeding as to dispensations,
absolution from ecclesiastical censures, and the decision of cases
specially reserved to the Pope. It was expressly announced
that the spiritual courts would take the common law as their
standard of jurisprudence in preference to the precepts of
the Roman Chancery, wherever there was a divergence between
the two codes.
These arrangements show that the first theologians of that
age, however strongly attached to the Roman patriarchate and
the Petrine primacy as traditional principles of government, did
not deem them indispensable to the life, authority, and normal
functions of the Church. Such, indeed, were the obvious lessons
of this disastrous schism. g -
The authority of the forthcoming Council of Pisa lay open to
Serious question. In the first place, it was the received doctrine
of that day that a General Council could be convoked only by
the Supreme Pontiff, and moreover, that he must preside over it
either in person or by his legates. Neither Pope could do this
While the Schism existed; since the very purpose of resorting to
* Chron. de S. Denis, Liv, xxix, cap. 6, Du Boulai, Hist, de l'Univ. de Paris,
tom. v. p. 158.
INTROD. GERSON AND D’AILLY ON THE SCHISM. 87
the Council was to determine between their conflicting preten-
sions, and to appoint a legitimate head of the Church. It had
been argued, again, that under such circumstances the duty of
convening the Council devolved upon the cardinals; but this
led to a further difficulty; for, if it were doubtful who was the
true Pope, it was doubtful likewise whether the cardinals were
lawfully appointed, and whether they had the right to initiate
such proceedings.” These problems, however, were met and
solved in a masterly manner by such clear-sighted reasoners as
D'Ailly and Gerson. The latter, in his famous treatise ‘De
auferibilitate Papae, f pointed out that the Church must of
necessity possess the same power which belongs to every other
corporate Society, namely that of removing a chief officer who
is unable or unworthy to execute his functions, and providing
another in his place. “All positive laws,” says Gerson, “are sub-
ject to modification according to the exigency of successive wants;
and the present is one of those occasions when it is wiser to regard
the spirit than the mere letter of the law, and to be governed by
those primary Sanctions which are unchangeable and divine.”f
D'Ailly, in like manner, demonstrated that in certain cases,
one of which is that of a schism, rendering it difficult to deter-
mine between rival claimants of the Papacy, the ultimate appeal
must unquestionably be to a General Council. That supreme
tribunal, if the pretenders should obstinately refuse to resign,
might depose them, and afterwards proceed to the election of a
Pope who would be recognized throughout the Church.Ş
The Council met at Pisa. On the Feast of the Annunciation,
1409, amid intense excitement throughout Christendom. The
preponderance of the French Church on this great occasion
* Raynald., Ammal., tom. viii. c. 44. civilis communitas, vel politia rite or-
dinata.
f “Libellus de auferibilitate Papae
ab Ecclesiá.”—Gerson, Opera, tom. ii.
p. 209 et Seqq. - -
| “Non solium auctoritate Christi, sed
etiam communi jure naturali praemis-
Sam potestatem habet corpus mysticum
Ecclesiae Dei. Patet, quia quodlibet
corpus naturale naturaliter resistit Suae
divisioni et distractioni, et si sit corpus
animatum, naturaliter congregat Omnia
membra omnesque vires Stras ad con-
Servandam Suam unitatem, et repellen-
dam Suam divisionem ; simili quoque
modo et quodlibet corpus civile, seu
Ideoque corpus Spirituale sell
mysticum Ecclesiae Christianæ, quod or-
dinatissimè compositum est, similijure
uti poterit ad suam unitatem conser-
vandam et quamlibet Schismaticam di-
visionem repellendam, tanquam Suae
ordinationis destructivam . . -
Jura positiva non possunt ab Ecclesiá,
absolute tollere iliam potestatem quae
ei competit divino et naturali jure.”
Gerson, Opp., tom. ii. p. 112. (Edit.
Ellies Dupin. Antwerp, 1706.)
§ Petr. de Alliaco, De Eccles. et Con-
cil. General. Auctoritate, Pt. III, cap. 4.
88 - - TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
was manifest and irresistible. It was represented by eight car-
dinals, the titular Patriarch of Alexandria, Simon de Cramault,
the Metropolitans of Lyons, Bourges, Toulouse, Tours, Narbonne,
and Vienne,—thirty bishops present in person, and the proctors
of forty-six others who were unable to attend,-a vast multitude
of abbots, canons, heads of orders, and other dignitaries, together
with deputations from the Universities of Paris, Orleans, Angers,
Toulouse, and Montpellier.
Following the course indicated by the Parisian doctors, the
Synod proclaimed, in its 14th session, that it represented the
Church Universal, and had authority to decide the questions of
the union of the Church and of the schism. It next proceeded
in due form to depose Popes Benedict XIII. and Gregory XII.,
as schismatical, heretical, perjured and incorrigible; released all
Christians from the obligation to obey them; and declared the
Holy See to be vacant. The election of a new Pope followed
immediately. The Cardinals entered the Conclave on the 15th
of June, each having previously signed an agreement which
pledged him, in case he should be chosen, to continue the
Council until it should have effected a substantial reforma-
tion. The choice fell upon the Cardinal of Milan, Peter
of Candia, who took the title of Alexander W. The new
Pontiff engaged at his election to continue the Council of Pisa
for the avowed purpose of dealing with the crucial question of
the reformation of the Church. Ultimately, however, he pro-
rogued that assembly for three years, postponing the project
of reform until it should resume its labours. Alexander held
the Papal chair scarcely a year, and was succeeded, in May,
1410, by Balthazzar Cossa, under the name of John XXIII.
It was under the presidency of this pontiff that the celebrated
Council of Constance, styled the Sixteenth CEcumenical, com-
menced its sittings on the 5th of November, 1414.
The master-spirit of this assembly was Jean Gerson, now
Chancellor of the University of Paris; who impressed upon it, by
force of character as well as of argument, those irrefragable
views of ecclesiastical polity which for so many years he had
energetically laboured to establish. A large part of Gerson's
works is occupied by an elaborate exposition of the rights and
functions of CEcumenical Councils. This was necessary under
the circumstances of the time; for the expedient which he
INTROD. GERSON ON GENERAL COUNCILS. S9.
advocated, notwithstanding the well-known practice of the Church
in earlier ages, was strange to the existing generation; it was of
a tentative character, and had somewhat the air of being a con-
trivance pro re natá. - *
“It may be asked,” writes Gerson to his friend Cardinal
D'Ailly, immediately before the opening of the Synod, “it
may be asked whether this Council is above the Pope.* I
reply, certainly it is. It is superior to the Pope in authority,
superior in dignity, Superior in office. From the decisions of
such a Council there is no appeal. Such a Council has power to
enact new laws, and to abrogate.existing and ancient laws. The
constitutions and decrees of such a Council are incapable of being
changed or dispensed with by any power inferior to itself. The
Pope cannot, and never could, dispense with the sacred canons
framed by a General Council,t unless the Council itself, for
some weighty reason, should specially authorize him to do so.
The Pope cannot alter, nor even interpret, the acts of the Council,
much less can he dispense with them; since they are like the
Gospels of Christ, over which the Pope has no jurisdiction what-
ever. Let the Catholic Church take heed above all things never
to concede to the Pope, under any pretext, the power of dis-
pensing with the canons of a General Council, or even of alter-
ing or interpreting them; this ought to be done solely by
another council, to be convoked from time to time for the re-
formation of the Church. For it is plain as daylight that the
greater part of what was done and ordained by the four great
CEcumenical Councils, and others subsequent, has been almost
annihilated and cast into oblivion by the growing avarice of
Popes, cardinals, and prelates; by means of papal reservations,
the illiquitous practices of the Apostolic Chamber and chancery,
by corrupt dispensations, indulgences, and the office of the
“Penitentiary.” .
* Bellarmine (De Concil. Auct., Lib.
ii.) asserts that the vexed question of
the relative authority of Popes and
Councils' first arose at the time of the
Council of Pisa, implying, of course,
that it was one of the pestilent fruits
of the great schism. But this is mere
misrepresentation. See the conclusive
testimonies collected on the subject by
J. de Launoi, in his epistle ad Christo- .
phorum Fauvaeum (Laun., Epist., Pars
Ima.)
† This position is controverted by De
Marca, who lays down as a fundamental
principle, “Papam Solvere posse et
dispensare validè et licitè a canonibus
Conciliorum Generalium, etiam sine
causã, ; dummodo hac dispensatio mon
tendat ad labefactandum Ecclesiae sta-
tum (De Concord., Prolegomena, and ib.
Lib. iii. Capp. 14, 15). Gerson, however,
is in this instance the more correct
exponent of Gallican doctrine,
90 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
“The first object of the Council,” he continues, “is the elec-
tion of one universal and unquestioned Pastor, approved by the
whole Church; and, in the next place, there must be made a
certain limitation and modification of the power of the said
pastor; which power is at present excessive, and has grievously
impaired and damaged the rights of other prelates.””
The same maxims were asserted, but in more unmeasured
language, by Gerson's colleagues, the doctors deputed to the
Council by the University of Paris. “The Church militant,”
they observed, “is more necessary than the Pope; for men can
be saved without the Pope, whereas beyond the Church there is
no salvation. The Church is better than the Pope; because the
Pope is made for the Church; now, as Aristotle teaches, the end
is superior to the means. The Church is more honourable than
the Pope; for Christ multiplies upon her gifts and graces with-
out number, which cannot be said of the person of the Pope.
The Church is stronger than the Pope; since the gates of hell,
that is the vices and heresies of mankind, have never prevailed
against her; whereas they have often prevailed against the
Pope. The Church is more steadfast in the faith than the
Pope; for the Pope has sometimes departed from the faith, which
can never be the case with the universal Church. The Pope
receives from the Church the trust of sovereign authority; for
he derives it through the ministry of those who elect him. It
follows that the power which belongs actually to the Pope
belongs habitually to the universal Church. The Church law-
fully assembled can in certain cases arraign, condemn, and even
depose the Pope; because, since the Pope acquires his power
from the Church, the Church can deprive him of it, should it
be abused. The Church, represented by a General Council, has
more authority than the Pope, because the Council can frame
decrees which the Pope is bound to observe. Hence St. Gre-
gory declared that he would not believe the Gospels unless he
were determined to such belief by the authority and witness
of the Church.” The Parisian divines affirmed in conclusion
that the Church could not take any more effectual step towards
its own thorough reformation than to prescribe the regular con-
.* Gerson, “De modis uniendi et reformandi Ecclesiam,” in Von der Hardt,
Concil. Constant, tom. ii. Pt. v.
INTROD. THE DECREES OF CONSTANCE. 91
tinuation of General Councils; at the same time by no means
omitting the due celebration of Provincial Councils.”
The strong predominance of Gallican opinion at Constance
found expression in the well-known decrees passed by the Council
in its fourth and fifth sessions, in spite of vehement opposition
from the cardinals and bishops of the Italian “nation.”
“This holy Synod of Constance, being a General Council law-
fully assembled in the name of the Holy Ghost, and represent-
ing the Church militant, has received immediately from Jesus
Christ a power to which all persons of whatever rank and dig-
nity, not excepting the Pope himself, are bound to submit in
those matters which concern the faith, the extirpation of the
existing schism, and the reformation of the Church in its head
and its members.”f
“Whosoever, be his dignity what it may, without excepting
the Pope, shall obstinately refuse to obey the statutes, ordi-
nances, and precepts of the present Council, or of any other
General Council lawfully assembled, shall be subjected, unless
he repent, to proportionate penance, and punished according to
his deserts, recourse being had, if necessary, to the assistance of
the secular arm.” -
By other articles it was declared that the Council could not be
transferred or dissolved without its own consent: and all the
ecclesiastical acts of John XXIII., from the day of his flight
from Constance, were pronounced null and void. It was like-
wise enacted that a second CEcumenical Council should be held
five years after the dissolution of the present; another at the
expiration of seven years after the second, and thenceforward
One at the interval of every ten years.
Such was the first synodical definition made by the Western
Church as to the relative powers and jurisdiction of the Pope
* See “Parisiensium Conclusiones,”
in Von der Hardt, tom. ii. Pt. 10.
† In some MSS. the words “in his
quae pertinent ad Fidem ’’ are wanting;
others do not contain the clause “ac
generalem reformationem Ecclesiae Dei
in capite et in membris.” This fact
was taken advantage of by Emmanuel
Schelstrate, librarian of the Vatican, in
his edition of the Acts of the Council
of Constance, as indicating that those
passages had been fraudulently inter-
polated; and he accuses the Fathers of
Basle of fabricating them for the sake
of establishing more completely the
subjection of the Pope to the Council.
But the charge is unfounded. In many
copies, Some of them of contemporary
date, the decree appears precisely as
it here stands; and all the records of
the following session, in which it was
discussed and enacted a second time,
concur in relating it in the same exact
terms. Cf. BOSSuet, Defens. Declarat.
Cl. Gall., Pt. I. Lib. V. capp. 3, 4. Maim-
bourg, Traité Historique des Prerog. de
l'Egl. de Rome, cap. 23. Contin de
I'leury, Liv, cii. 175,
92 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
and a General Council. The position of affairs at that crisis
rendered such an utterance needful and unavoidable; but it
cannot be denied that an element of strife was thus introduced,
which developed step by step into a series of calamitous results.
From this moment may be dated the formal divergence of
the Cisalpine or Gallican from the Ultramontane theology.
Every ingenious device has been exhausted by the latter school
in order to evade and nullify the force of these memorable de-
crees of Constance.” But the attempt is in no slight degree
embarrassing. For, on the one hand, it would be suicidal to
deny the authority of the Council, because the deposition of
John XXIII., the election of Martin W., and the succession of
subsequent Popes, would thereby be invalidated. Yet, on the
other, these acts of the fourth and fifth sessions, if taken in their
widest sense, are felt to be fatal to the theory of the Pope's
absolute monarchy. Various arguments have been advanced
to meet the difficulty. It is alleged that the Council did not
intend to lay down a theological truth of universal obligation,
but only to assert a rule of discipline applicable to abnormal
circumstances, such as prevailed during the schism. It is
obvious, however, that the Fathers of Constance go further than
this ; they predicate of “any other General Council lawfully
assembled” the same authority, legislative and judicial, which
they claimed for their own tribunal then sitting. And, more-
over, among the famous articles of reformation which were
adopted in their fortieth session (Oct. 30, 1417), and which the
Pope elect engaged to propose for consideration at the meeting
of the Council next ensuing, was one (art. 13) entitled “Propter
quae et quomodo Papa possit corrigi et deponi.”f Whence it is
clear that the possibility was contemplated of circumstances
which might compel the Church again to exercise its juridical
power over the Pope, as it had done on the late occasions. This
seems decisive as to the mind and purpose of those who framed
the decrees of Constance. •
But it is asserted, again, that the obnoxious definitions were
never confirmed by the Pope, and consequently have no canoni-
cal authority. Martin V., who was elected in November, 1417,
* The most forcible argument against Council of Constance was not CEcume-
them, however, is one which cammot be mical, but only a synod of the Western
employed by Ultramontanes consistently | Patriarchate, or Roman obedience.
with their principles, namely, that the t Von der Hardt, tom. iv. p. 1449.
INTROD. ULTRAMONTANE OBJECTIONS. 93
and presided in the four concluding sessions of the Council, ex-
pressed his approval in general terms of all its acts which had
been passed “conciliariter;”* but Bellarmine and others con-
tend that the particular acts in question were not such, inas-
much as they were not preceded by full and mature synodical
discussion. They therefore consider that the acts referred to in
the bull of confirmation were those only by which the Council
condemned the heresies of Wickliff and John Huss.
It will be allowed, however, that among the conciliar acts
which were confirmed by Martin W., that of the deposition of
John XXIII., his predecessor, must be included; for, unless that
was a canonical proceeding, he himself was not the lawful
occupant of the Apostolic See. Yet that act demonstrated the
supremacy of a General Council over the Pope; and that not over
a doubtful Pope, but over one acknowledged by the Council
itself to be the true and rightful successor of Peter. Implicitly,
therefore, Martin confirmed the doctrine asserted by the Council,
even supposing that he did not expressly confirm the definitions
of the fourth and fifth sessions. - - - • *
This argument was pressed against him with conclusive effect
by Gerson in his treatise on the right of appeal from the Pope
to a General Council. “If it be not lawful,” he says, “to appeal
from the individual Pope to a Council which represents the
whole Church Catholic, then such a Council is not the supreme
tribunal of the Church; but if the Council is not possessed of
such sovereign jurisdiction, then the Council of Constance had
no right to depose John XXIII. ; consequently he is still the
legitimate Pope, and his Holiness Martin W., in that case, is no
more than a pretender.”f
Upon the whole, the language of Pope Martin, both on the
occasion above referred to, and in his bull of February 22, 1418,
must be held to signify the assent of that Pontiff to all doctrinal
definitions made at Constance, including those which have since
been so warmly controverted. Nor does it appear, after all, on
a dispassionate view of the case, that anything is propounded
* See the Pope's reply to the am- opinion is the right one, that it implies
bassadors of the king of Poland. Von “in full Council,” “in a regular ses-
der Hardt, tom. iv. p. 1549. Lenfant, Sion.”—Richer, Hist. Concil. Gem., tom.
IT. du C. de Constance, tom. ii. p. 609. ii. p. 254. See also Ant. Arnauld.,
The meaning of the word “conci- ) CEuvres, tom. x. p. 728.
liariter’” has been much contested. f Gerson, Opp, tom. ii. p. 306.
I cannot doubt that Edm, Riclier's
94 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
in those definitions which is either beyond or beside the imme-
morial tradition of the Church. Was it a novel doctrine, that
an OEcumenical Council has authority to make laws for the
whole Christian community, and that the Pope, more directly
than any other individual, is bound to conform to them, to main-
tain their integrity, and to enforce their observance? Had not
this truth been acknowledged most emphatically by the Popes
themselves for ages anterior to the Council of Constance P Do not
their official professions and protestations on this subject occupy
page after page in the collected code of ecclesiastical jurispru-
dence P The decrees of Constance, fairly construed, amount to
no more than this, that it is obligatory on the Pope to obey the
canons of CEcumenical Councils. Why should such a declaration
be less acceptable to Popes of the fifteenth century than it was to
those of the fifth P Why should Martin and Eugenius hesitate to
sanction it, while it is endorsed by the concurrent testimony of
their predecessors of happy memory, Zosimus, Boniface, Gela-
sius, S. Leo, S. Gregory, Leo IV., and many others?
But although the doctrine of the supremacy of General Councils,
thus authoritatively proclaimed, is of the deepest importance as
a rule of ecclesiastical polity, De Marca and other authors warn
us against the mistake of supposing that the so-called “liberties
of the Gallican Church” consist wholly, or even chiefly, in the
maintenance of this abstract principle.” The true liberty of
the Church, whether in France or elsewhere, lies in its being
governed in conformity with the ancient canons, and with those
laws which from time to time are enacted synodically, in accord-
ance with the original principles of its constitution.
In pursuance of the arrangement made at Constance, a Council
was convened at Pavia in 1423; but after a few weeks it was
transferred to Sienna, and thence subsequently to Basle. Eu-
genius IV., who succeeded Martin, apprehending probably that
this assembly, if permitted to proceed independently, would
follow in the track of that of Constance, and apply itself with
indiscreet zeal to the work of reform, attempted to dissolve it, and
proposed that it should meet a year later at Bologna, where it
would have been in great measure under his own dictation.
This led to a rupture between the Pope and the Council; and
* De Marca, De Concord., Lib. iii, cap. 7, §§ 1, 2.
INTROD. COUNCIL OF BASLE.
years of confused strife ensued (into the details of which it is
unnecessary to enter) totally frustrating the measures so
urgently required for the purification of the Church.
r. The position assumed by the Gallican Church at this juncture
was peculiar, and in Some respects questionable. It declared
decidedly in favour of the Council of Basle; many French pre-
lates repaired thither, and ambassadors were sent by the King,
Charles VII., to Pope Eugenius, to beseech him to support the
authority of the Synod, and to protest against its dissolution.
The Fathers stood firm at their post, appealing to the principles
Solemnly asserted at Constance, that the Pope is bound in
certain specified cases to submit to an OEcumenical Council, and
that the latter cannot be translated, prorogued, or dissolved,
without its own consent.” The gift of infallibility, they affirmed,
resides in the collective Church. It does not belong to the
Popes, several of whom have erred concerning the Faith. The
Church alone has authority to enact laws which are binding
on the whole body of the faithful. Now, the authority of
General Councils is identical with that of the Church. This
was expressly determined by the Council of Constance, and
acknowledged by Pope Martin W. The Pope is the ministerial
* One of the chief authorities for
the proceedings of the Council of Basle
is AEneas Sylvius Piccolomini (after-
wards Pope Pius II.), who acted as its
Secretary and amanuensis.
of the relation of the Pope to the
Church was at this time decidedly of |
the Gallican type. “The Pope,” he
says, “though called the head of the
Church, cannot stand in the same rela-
tion to the ecclesiastical body as a man’s
head does to the natural body, other-
wise it would follow that, as when the
head is severed, the body is instantly
deprived of life, so when the Pope ex-
pires, the Church is extinguished like-
Wise, which were absurd.
except in the sense of its ministerial
head; for we read that Christ is the
Head of the Church, not the Pope; it
is He who is the true, unchingeable,
perpetual, and eternal Head. The Roman
Pontiff is no more than the Vicar (lo-
cum tenens) of the true Head; but the
E[is view
Whatever
others may believe,” he continues, “I
cannot agree with those who hold the
Pope to be the head of the Church,
- - and Eugenius, is powerfully discussel
Church is the body of Christ himself,
of which even the Pope is but a member.
Moreover, he is the Vicar of Christ, not
for the destruction, but for the edifica-
tion of the Church, which is His body.
Wherefore, if he should prove hurtful
and pernicious, he may be deposed, for
he does not fulfil the end for which he
was instituted.”—AEn. Sylv., Comment.
de Gestis Basiliens. Concil., Lib. i.
Subsequently, however, when elevated
to the Pontifical chair, Pius II. Saw
reason to discard these and other cog-
nate sentiments of his earlier days, and
even to retract them in a formal docu-
ment. See the “Retractatio Pii Se-
cundi,” in Guimier and Pinsson, Pragm.
Sanct. et Concordat., p. 841 et seq. The
whole case between the Councils of
Constance and Basle, and Popes Martin
by the Archbishop of Palermo in his
elaborate Treatise, Panormitanus de
Concilio Basiliensi, printed by Guimier
and Pinsson, Pragm. Sanct, et Com-
cordat., p. 849. -
96 - THE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. INTROI).
head of the Church, but he is not its absolute Sovereign; on the
contrary, facts prove that he is subject to the jurisdiction of the
Church; for well-known instances are on record of Popes being
deposed on the score of erroneous doctrine and immoral life,
whereas no Pope has ever attempted to condemn or excommu-
nicate the Church. Both the Pope and the Church have
received authority to bind and loose ; but the Church has prac-
tically exerted that authority against the Pope, whereas the
latter has never ventured to take any such step against the
Church. In fine, the words of Christ himself are decisive of
the question—“If any man neglect to hear the Church, let him
be unto you as a heathen man and a publican.” This injunction
was addressed to St. Peter equally with the rest of the disciples.”
{The Council proceeded to cite Eugenius by a formal monition
to appear in person at Basle; and on his failing to comply,
they signified that on the expiration of a further interval of
sixty days, ulterior means would be put in force against him.
Their firmness, added to the pressing solicitations of the Emperor
Sigismund, at length induced the Pope to yield. He reconciled
himself with the Council in December, 1433; acknowledged
that it had been legitimately convoked ; approved its proceed-
ings up to that date; and cancelled the act by which he had
pronounced its dissolution.f - -
Elated by this triumph, the Basilian fathers commenced
in earnest the task of church reform, and passed several de-
crees of a character vexatious to the Pope, particularly one for
the total abolition of annates. A second breach was the con-
sequence. Eugenius, under pretence of furthering the nego-
ciation then pending for the reunion of the Greek and Latin
branches of the Church, published in 1437 a bull dissolving the
Council of Basle, and summoning another to meet at Ferrara.
The assembly at Basle retorted by declaring the Pope contu-
macious, and Suspending him from the exercise of all authority.
Both parties proceeded eventually to the last extremities. The
Council, after proclaiming afresh, as “Catholic verities,” that a
General Council has power over the Pope, and cannot be trans-
ferred or dissolved but by its own act, passed a definitive
* See the synodical reply of the Fathers of Basle to the Pope's legates in
Labbe, Concil., tom. xii.
† Raynald, Aum., tom. ix. p. 164.
INTROD. NATIONAL COUNCIL OF BOURGES. 97
sentence in its thirty-fourth session (June 25, 1439) deposing
Eugenius from the Papal throne. The Pope retaliated by stig-
matizing the fathers of Basle as schismatical and heretical,
cancelling their acts, and excommunicating their president, the
Cardinal Archbishop of Arles.*
Meanwhile an energetic and independent line of action was
adopted by the government in France. The Crown, in concert
with the heads of the Church, availed itself of a train of events
which had so seriously damaged the prestige of the Papacy, to
make a decisive advance in the path of practical reform, and
to establish the long-cherished Gallican privileges on a secure
basis. For this purpose Charles VII. assembled a great National
Council at Bourges, in July, 1438, at which he presided in per-
son, surrounded by the princes of his family, and by all the most
eminent dignitaries spiritual and temporal; and here was pro-
mulgated the memorable ordinance known as the “Pragmatic
Sanction of Bourges.”
The French Church, it must be observed, did not recognise
the deposition of Pope Eugenius, but adhered to his obedience,
rejecting Felix V., whom the Council of Basle elected to succeed
him, as a pretender. It continued, nevertheless, to support the
Council, and to assert its supreme legislative authority. Hence
there arises a considerable difficulty in limine as to the character
of the proceedings at Bourges. For the deposition of Eugenius
was either a rightful and valid exercise of conciliar authority,
or it was not. If it was not—if the Council had wrongfully and
uncanonically condemned the successor of Peter—how could it
be infallible? and why should its legislation in other particulars be
indisputable P. On the other hand, if the deposition was a valid
one, with what consistency could the French continue to regard
Eugenius as their legitimate pastor? It was a knotty dilemma.
The position, however, though logically open to objections,
was not without its practical advantages. For, since France
maintained a good understanding with both the contending
parties, both found it conducive to their interest to send
deputations to the Council of Bourges; Pope Eugenius, with
* The Ultramontane arguments against which an extract is given by Raynald,
the validity of the proceedings at Basle ad amm. 1432. Torquemada (or De Tur-
are to be found at length in Cardinal recremata) was the Pope's “theologian”
Torquemada's Summa de Ecclesiá, from at the Council.
VOI. I. - H
98 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
a view to obtain its support for the rival council which he had
opened at Ferrara; the fathers of Basle, in order to make known
their decrees, which, as agreeing with the received doctrine of
Gallican theologians, would, it was hoped, meet with a cordial
welcome throughout France. The assembly at Bourges did not
fail to profit by these exceptional circumstances. It accepted
the decrees of Basle, yet not absolutely, but after critical exami-
nation, and with certain modifications;–a course which, by
implication, asserted a right to legislate for the concerns of
the French Church even independently of a General Council
acknowledged to be orthodox. The following explanation of
this proceeding was inserted in the preamble of the celebrated
statute finally agreed upon by the authorities at Bourges. It is
there stated that this policy was adopted “not from any hesita-
tion as to the authority of the Council of Basle to enact and
promulgate ecclesiastical decrees, but because it was judged ad-
visable to adapt those decrees to the usages, circumstances, and
requirements of the French realm and nation.”* So that it
appears, on the whole, that while the French professed great zeal
on this occasion for the dogma of the superiority of a General
Council over the Pope, the principle practically illustrated at
Bourges was that of the Supremacy of a National Council over
every other ecclesiastical authority. Such were the anomalies
which arose out of the strange necessities of the time. -
The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourgest embraces twenty-three
articles. The first treats of the authority of General Councils,
and of the time and manner of convening and celebrating them.
The second relates to ecclesiastical elections, which are enjoined
to be made hereafter in strict accordance with the canons, by
the cathedral, collegiate, and conventual chapters. Reserves,
* “Non haesitatione potestatis et auc- t Ordonnances des Rois, tom. xiii. p.
toritatis condentis et promulgantis, sci- 267.
licet insius Sacrae Basiliensis Synodi, § Sir James Stephen, in one of his
sed quatemus commoditatibus, tempori- Lectures on the History of France (vol. i.
bus, et moribus regionum et personarum p. 405, 3rd Edit.), has fallen into the
saºpe fatorum nostrorum Regni et Del- curious mistake of supposing that the
phinatás congruere convenireque con- Pragmatic Sanction legalised the nomi-
grue juregue conspexerunt.” nation by the Crown to the bishoprics
t “Tantã libertate in recipiendis, and other Church dignities; and he
rejiciendis, truncandis, ampliandis Basi- describes this as constituting the “Gal-
liensium placitis usi Sunt, ut patentis- lican liberties.” On the contrary, that
simè se etiam judices Conciliorum Ge- edict restored, in distinct terms, “the
neralium quale Basiliense prae se fero. canonical elections to all metropolitan,
bant, constituerint.”—Spondamus, ad cathedral, collegiate, and conventual
ann, 1488. & churches, according to the provisions of
INTROD. PRAGMATIC, SANCTION OF BOURGES.
annates, and “expective graces,” are abolished; the rights of
patrons are to be respected, provided their nominees be graduates
of the Universities, and otherwise well qualified. The Pope re-
tains only a veto in case of unfitness or uncanonical election,
and the nomination to benefices “in curià vacantia,” 2. e., of
which the incumbents may happen to die at Rome, or within
two days’ journey of the Pontifical residence. The King and
other princes may occasionally recommend or request the pro-
motion of persons of special merit, but without threats or violent
pressure of any kind.”
Other articles regulate the Order of ecclesiastical appeals, which,
with the exception of the “causae majores” specified by law, and
those relating to the elections in cathedral and conventual
churches, are henceforth to be decided on the spot by the ordi-
nary judges; appeals are to be carried in all cases to the court
immediately superior; no case to be referred to the Pope
“ omisso medio,” i.e., without passing through the intermediate
tribunals. The remaining clauses consist of regulations for the
performance of Divine service, and various matters of discipline.
The reader will remember that Pope Eugenius, on the occa-
Sion of his temporary reconciliation with the Council of Basle
in 1433, expressed his approbation of all its synodal acts up
to that date; and this sanction of their validity is held by Gal-
licans to extend to the period of the second and final rupture in
1437. It follows that the provisions of the Pragmatic Sanction
of Bourges, so far as they coincide with the decrees of Basle
prior to 1437, were authorized by the Holy See; and this in-
cludes them all with two exceptions.#
the common law.” It was this right of bene meritis et Zelantibus bonum Rei-
canonical election that formed the key- publicae, regni, et Delphinatſis.”
stone of the “liberty” of the Gallican f Continuat, de Fleury, Eſist. Eccles.,
Church; the practice of Royal nomi- || Liv. 106, §§ 83 et Seqq.
nation was a contravention, evasion, i Ellies-Dupin, Hist. Eccles. Cent.
and abuse of that invaluable franchise. XVI., Liv. i., cap. 1. . The two excep-
In order to obtain a statutable right | tions were the article on collations to
to nominate the prelates of the realm, benefices, and that on the hearing of
the Crown was obliged to abolish the ecclesiastical causes. Eugenius, in his
Pragmatic Sanction, which was re- bull “Moyses,” dated at Florence in
placed by the Concordat of Bologna. 1439, annuls all the proceedings at
* “Nec credit insa congregatio Bitu- || Basle subsequent to the translation of
ricensis fore reprehensibile, si Rex et the Council, and inveighs with special
principes regni sui (cessantibus tamen severity against the three “Catholic
omnibus comminationibus et quibuslibet verities” above mentioned, alleging
violentiis) aliquando utantur precibus that they are based on a misinterpreta-
benignis atque benevolis pro personis tion and perversion of the decrees Of
3 : , , ºf 2 ×
'...} ...'
J
-

100. THE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. INTROD.
The Pragmatic Sanction was registered by the Parliament of
Paris on the 13th of July, 1439; becoming thereby part of the
statute law of France. Its publication caused universal satis-
faction throughout the kingdom. At Rome, on the other hand, it
was indignantly censured and resolutely opposed. Eugenius IV.
vainly strove to obtain the King's consent to an alteration of
some of its details. Nicolas W. protested against it without
effect; but the superior genius and subtle measures of Pius II.
were more successful. . This Pontiff denounced the Pragmatic at
the Council of Mantua in 1460, as “a blot which disfigured the
Church of France; a decree which no CEcumenical Council
would have passed, nor any Pope have confirmed; a principle
of confusion in the ecclesiastical hierarchy. Since it had been
in force, the laity had become the masters and judges of the
clergy; the power of the spiritual sword could no longer be
exerted except at the good pleasure of the secular authority.
The Roman Pontiff, whose diocese embraced the world, whose
jurisdiction is not bounded even by the ocean, possessed only
such extent of power in France as the Parliament might see
fit to allow him.” The ambassadors of Charles VII., however,
reminded his Holiness that the Pragmatic Sanction was founded
on the canons of Constance and Basle, which had been ratified
by his predecessors; and when the Pope proceeded to threaten
France with an interdict, and to prohibit all appeal from his
decisions to a future council,” the King caused his procureur-
general, Jean Dauvet, to publish an official protest against these
acts of violence, concluding with a solemn appeal to the judg-
ment of the Church Catholic assembled by representation.
While awaiting that event, Charles declared himself resolved to
uphold the laws and regulations which had been sanctioned by
previous Councils.t
Louis XI, urged by alternate menaces, entreaties, and flattery
from Rome, revoked the Pragmatic Sanction shortly after his
accession. The step accorded well with his own arbitrary
temper; for he could not endure the privilege of free election
Constance. He omits, however, to XXIII. — Raynald, Ann., tom. ix. p.
specify what is the true meaning of 316.
those decrees; merely observing that * By the famous Constitution “Exe-
they were passed during the schism, crabilis.”—Labbe, Concil., tom. xiii. p.
and by one only out of the three “obe- 1801. -
diences,” tºº. the departure of John f Contin. de Fleury, Liv. cxi. § 147.
INTROD. DEFENCE OF PRAGMATIC SANCTION. 101
by the cathedral and monastic chapters; nor was he less jealous
of the influence exerted, under the shelter of that privilege, by
the high feudal nobility in the disposal of Church preferment.
He seems to have expected, moreover, that while ostensibly
conceding the right of patronage to the Apostolic See, he should
be able to retain the real power in his own hands. The event
disappointed his calculations. No sooner was the decree of
|Bourges rescinded, than the Pope resumed and enforced his
claim to the provision of benefices in France. Simony, and the
whole train of concomitant abuses, reappeared more scandalously
than ever; and Louis found himself despised by his subjects as
the dupe of Papal artifice. *
The Parliamentary Courts, meanwhile, assumed a determined
attitude in defence of the right of election guaranteed by the
Pragmatic Sanction. They pronounced the abolition of that
act illegal, and treated it as null and void; they insisted on
their own authority in entertaining appeals against ecclesiastical
abuses; they eagerly supported any one who showed a disposi-
tion to withstand the pretensions of Rome in the matter of
patronage. The king, Smarting under the trickery of the Pope,
made no attempt to restrain them in this line of conduct; and
the result was that the repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction
was never fully executed, having never been legalized by the
forms of the Constitution. On the other hand, the Popes so far
maintained the advantage they had extorted from Louis, that
the ancient franchise of the Church as to elections became
virtually extinct in France.*
Things remained in this unsettled state during the reigns of
Louis XI., Charles VIII., and Louis XII. The latter prince, on
coming to the throne, published an edict re-establishing the
Pragmatic Sanction; t and this step, added to his ambitious
enterprises in Italy, brought him into hostile collision with Pope
Julius II. The king, unwilling to make war on the head of the
Church without some semblance of ecclesiastical sanction, con-
voked a Council at Tours in September, 1510, and consulted
the clergy on a series of questions arising out of the disturbed
state of his relations with Rome. They decided, in accordance
with the known views and wishes of the Sovereign, that it is lawful
* Thomassin, Vet. et Nov. Eccles, Discip., II, Lib, ii, cap. xxxiii. 8.
f Ibid., Lib. i. cap. 45.
102 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. INTROD.
for an independent prince, if unjustly attacked, to defend himself
against the Pope by force of arms—to withdraw for a time from
his obedience—to take possession of the territory of the Church,
not with the purpose of retaining it, but as a temporary measure
of self-protection—and to resist the pretensions of the Pontiff to
powers not rightfully belonging to him. Citations to appear at
Rome might, under such circumstances, be safely disregarded ;
as also Papal censures, which would be null and void. If the
emergency should arise, the Council added, the king ought to
be governed by the ancient principles of ecclesiastical law, as
confirmed and re-enacted by the Pragmatic Sanction.*
The Gallican clergy sent a deputation to Pope Julius on this
occasion, to entreat him to adopt a more conciliatory policy
towards the princes of Christendom ; and they determined, in
case their advice should be fruitless, to demand the convocation
of a General Council, to take cognizance of the Pope's conduct,
and prescribe the measures necessary for the guidance and Welfare
of the Church.
An ecclesiastical congress, calling itself a Council-General,
but altogether unworthy of that august title, was held, in fact,
in the following year at Pisa, under the auspices of the King of
Erance and the Emperor Maximilian. The Pope refused to
appear there, and convoked a rival Synod at Rome, Summoning
the cardinals who had authorized the meeting at Pisa to present
themselves at his court within sixty days. On the expiration of
this term he publicly excommunicated them, degraded them
from their dignity, and deprived them of their preferments.
Thus the Western Church once more exhibited the spectacle
of a “house divided against itself,” as during the scandalous
strife between the synods of Basle and Florence; and for some
time a formal Schism appeared imminent. The so-called
Council of Pisa consisted of the four rebellious cardinals, twenty
Gallican prelates, several abbots and other dignitaries, the
envoys of the King of France, deputies from some of the French
Universities, and a considerable number of Doctors of the Faculty
of Paris. This assembly justified its position on the ground that
there are extraordinary cases in which a Council may be called
...* Labbé, Concil., tom. xiii. p. 1481; Raynald, ad ann. 1510; Continuat. de
Pleury, Lib, 121, § 117; Longueval, Hist, de l'Eglise Gallicane, tom, xxi. p. 359.
INTROD. |PSEUDO COUNCIL OF PISA. 103
without the intervention of the Pope; and that, since the present
Pontiff had neglected to obey the decree of the Council of Con-
stance which enjoined a similar celebration at the interval of
every ten years, the cardinals were bound to take the initiative
in the matter, according to a solemn engagement which they had
made in the conclave when Julius was elected.” After repeating
the stereotyped formula concerning the Supreme authority of
General Councils, and the imperative necessity of a reformation
of the Church in its head and in its members, the fathers
addressed themselves professedly to the herculean task thus
indicated; but little or nothing was effected of any practical
importance.
Political emergencies compelled them ere long to transfer
their sessions to Milan;f and here, on the 21st of April, 1512,
they had the hardihood to publish a decree suspending Pope
Julius from all Pontifical functions, as “a notorious disturber of
the Council, the author of schism, contumacious, incorrigible,
and hardened.”
Louis XII. accepted this sentence by a special edict, and
ordered it to be registered and published by the Parliament of
Paris; upon which the Pope replied by excommunicating the
king, laying the whole of his dominions under an interdict,
and absolving his subjects from their oath of allegiance.f
Louis protested against this bull, and further expressed his
indignation by causing coins to be struck bearing the arms of
France encircled by the menacing legend, “Perdam Babylonis
momen.” .
Victory declared eventually for the Pope. He succeeded in
organizing a formidable coalition against the French; they
* Raynald, Ammal., ad ann. 1511. work to the judgment of the Theolo-
f It was here that they received the
treatise of Cardinal di Vio, or Cajetan,
“De auctoritate Papae, et Concilii Sive
Ecclesiae, comparatā.” This was one
of the earliest expositions of the Ultra-
montane theory of church government.
Cajetan maintains the Sovereignty of
the Pope over the universal Church, but
does not contend that he is personally
infallible; on the contrary, he admits
that a Pope may fall into heresy, and
that in that case a Council may depose
him, The fathers at Milan referred the
gical Faculty of Paris, and that body
commissioned three doctors to Write in
refutation of it. It was not officially
condemned as a whole, but the Faculty
censured the author's attempt to dis-
parage the Councils of Constance and
Basle, and reaffirmed the Gallican view
of their authority.
i Contin. de I'lewry, Liv. cxxii. §§
115, 116, 117.
§ De Thou, Hist. Univ., Liv. i. De
Thou adds that these coins were fre-
quently met with in his time.
104 - TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
were expelled ignominiously from the Milanese ; the terrified
members of the pseudo-council crossed the Alps in precipitate
haste, and took refuge at Lyons, where their situation and
pretensions were little short of ridiculous.
In the mean time the fifth Council of Lateran, styled by the
Roman Church oecumenical, though its right to that title was
scarcely better than that of the assembly at Pisa, commenced
its sittings on the 10th of May, 1512.* The Pope presided in
person, at the head of fifteen cardinals, and upwards of a hundred
prelates, almost all Italian. Here the acts of the schismatical
assemblies at Pisa, Milan, and Lyons were solemnly condemned
and annulled, and the censures pronounced on the King of
Erance were confirmed. In the fourth session (December 10,
1512) a vigorous attack was made on the Pragmatic Sanction.
The letters-patent of Louis XI. were read, by which it had been
suppressed at the instance of Pius II.; after which a monition
was published summoning all supporters of that act, of what-
soever rank or dignity, to appear at Rome within sixty days, and
show cause why it should not be finally revoked and abolished.
The fifth session was not held till the 16th of February, 1513;
and a few days afterwards the turbulent reign of Julius II, was
brought to a close by death. The views and policy of his
successor, Leo X., were of a totally opposite character. He
made it his first object to restore peace to Christendom; and
circumstances soon enabled him to arrive at a definitive adjust-
ment of the perplexing questions which had been so long
pending with the Government of France. Unfortunately, that
adjustment amounted to a deliberate betrayal of the first prin-
ciples of the constitution of the Church; principles which the
Apostolic See Ought to have defended and enforced at all
hazards. -
Louis XII, who was greatly disheartend by his late reverses,
lost no time in signifying his desire to effect a reconciliation
with the new Pope. This was granted him on easy terms. The
French ambassadors attended the eighth session of the Lateran
Council, and renounced in their master's name the pretended
Councils of Pisa, Milan, and Lyons, accepting that of the Lateran
as the sole legitimate and indubitable Council, and engaging
* Labbe, Concil., tom, xiv. p. 4.
INTROD. CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA. - 105
that the assembly still in session at Lyons should separate within
one month. It was also promised that a deputation of the
Erench clergy should repair to Rome to solicit absolution.
The fulfilment of this latter article was delayed upon various
pretexts, and the Pope, as an act of indulgence, postponed it to
the eleventh session of the Council, which was not held till the
19th of December, 1516. Meanwhile the abolition of the Prag-
matic Sanction, an object which the Court of Rome pursued with
extraordinary energy, remained in suspense. But an event
occurred ere long which wonderfully facilitated the desired
arrangement. Louis XII. expired in January, 1515, and was
succeeded by Francis I.
It was after the splendid triumph of the French arms at
Marignano that Leo judged it advisable to negotiate a final
treaty of reconciliation with the Gallican Church. The young
monarch, flushed with victory, was at that moment in a position
to demand advantageous terms; and it was plain that any
agreement must be of the nature of a compromise. Antoine
Duprat, Chancellor of France, to whom Francis entrusted the
management of this delicate business, was a diplomatist well
capable of pressing the terms of a bargain in a sense correspond-
ing with his master's interests; and, knowing that the paramount
point with Rome was the abrogation of the Pragmatic Sanction,
he exacted, as the price of it, a boon which legalized and per-
petuated the predominance of the Crown in directing the
administration of the Church.
The celebrated Concordat of Bologna bears date the 18th of
August, 1516.” Many of its provisions were identical with those
of the Pragmatic Sanction, for which it was substituted ; but
there were some conspicuous exceptions. The most important
article is that relating to the right of nomination to bishoprics
and other “benefices consistoriaux: ” this was transferred in
express terms from the capitular bodies to the Crown. The king
was to present, within six months after the vacancy, a doctor or
licentiate in divinity to the Pope, who was thereupon to confirm
the appointment and confer canonical institution;–a veto being
thus secured to the Holy See upon any choice which did not
* Labbe, Concil., tom. xiv. p. 358; Thomassin, II. Lib, i, cap. 4; Isambert,
Anciennes Lois Françaises, tom, xii. p. 75. -
I06 THE GALLICAN CEIUIRCH. INTROD.
satisfy the requirements of the canons.” The Pope was still to
nominate to benefices “in curià vacantia;” and it was further
agreed that every private patron having from ten to fifty bene-
fices in his gift should place One presentation at the disposal of
the Pope for the time being, or two, if the number exceeded
fifty.f Papal “reservations” and “expective graces” were
abolished. The right of University graduates to preferment
was recognized, and their privileges considerably extended. Í
Ecclesiastical causes were to be decided within the realm by
the ordinary tribunals, or by commissioners named by the Pope
in the case of “causae majores” statutably reserved to his
cognizance."
But the omissions from the Concordat were of crucial signifi-
cance. Entire silence was observed with respect to the memo-
rable decrees of Constance, Basle, and Bourges, which had
established the Superiority of Councils over the Pope. No
mention was made of the annates, which the Pragmatic Sanction
had suppressed; and in consequence of the tacit understanding
between the contracting parties on this head, the claim to
that impost was immediately revived by the Pope, who re-
garded it as a right inherently annexed to his See. “Thus,”
as Mezerai remarks, “the Pope surrendered to the king a
purely spiritual privilege, and obtained in return a purely
secular advantage.”"
This arbitrary measure excited an outcry of indignation
throughout France, and the mandate for its registration was
* In case of a refusal to grant the be claimed afresh, and that they would
bulls of institution, the Pope engaged
to specify his reasons. This power was
not unfrequently exercised, and became
a source of serious difficulty.
# Titulus vi., “De Mandatis Apos-
tolicis.”
i They were to be entitled to the
third part of all ecclesiastical benefices.
—Titulus V., § 2, “De Graduatis.”
§ “Exceptis majoribus in jure ex-
pressè denominatis.”—Titulus x., “De
Causis.”
| It was provided, however (Tit. v.,
§ 9) that a return should be made of
the true annual value of all benefices
in France for which confirmation was
sought at Rome, a stipulation which
implied that the annates were about to
be assessed to their full amount.
* Mezerai, Abregé Chronol., tom. ii.
p. 904. “Les mieux sensez s'etonnè-
rent grandement que ces deux Potentats
eussent fait ce troc si peu séant à l’un
et à l'autre; que le Pape se fust de-
pouillé du spirituel pour le conférer au
Roy, et que Sa Majesté, abandonnant
le temporel de Son état, permist que les
plus clairs deniers de son royaume se
transportassent à Rome. Parce mesme
moyen le Roy consentit l'abolition de la
Pragmatique; mais les bons François
s'y opposerent puissamment, comme a
la manifeste ruine de l'Eglise Gallicane,
et à la pepinière des simonics et des
confidences.”
INTRUD. RESISTANCE TO THE CONCORDAT. - 107
most stubbornly resisted by the Parliament of Paris. After ten
days of discussion, the magistrates came to a resolution that it
would be contrary to their duty to accept the new Ordinance;
they appealed against it to “the Pope better informed,” and to
the next General Council lawfully assembled.* . Meanwhile
they declared that the Pragmatic Sanction ought to be observed
more strictly than ever. If the king was absolutely determined
to enforce the reception of the Concordat, they begged that he
would cause it to be promulgated in the same way as in the case
of the Pragmatic Sanction, namely, by a lawfully convened
Council of the Gallican Church. The new decree was combated
in like manner by the University of Paris. That body posted
notices throughout the city forbidding all booksellers and
printers to print and publish it. They drew up an elaborate
memorial, setting forth the manifold evils which had arisen
from the disuse of free election; tracing to that source the
ignorance, incompetence, and depraved morals, which disgraced
the higher clergy, as well as the spoliation of the National
Church by the inordinate exactions of Rome. In conclusion,
the University appealed to the Pope “better informed,” and to
a future legitimate Council freely assembled. The act of appeal
stated that, “although the Pope holds his authority immediately
from God, he is not on that account incapable of error; that if
he should command anything contrary to the precepts of Divine
law, the faithful are not bound to obey him ; and that if he shall
persist in attempting to enforce submission, the only remedy is
to appeal from him to the decision of the Church Universal—a
right which none can gainsay, since it is founded on the law of
God and that of nature.” + Francis, much irritated, issued an
edict annulling these proceedings as Seditious, and insisting on
the immediate acceptance of the obnoxious Ordinance. At
first the command was disregarded ; but the despotic power to
which the monarchy had been steadily advancing ever since
the time of Philip the Fair prevailed in the end.
In the eleventh session of the Lateran Council (December 19,
1516), Leo X. promulgated the bull “Pastor aeternus,”f by
which the Pragmatic Sanction was finally abrogated and an-
* July 24, 1517. Pinsson, Hist. de novis Erroribus, tom.i.p.357. Pinsson,
Prag. et Comcord., p. 732. Hist, Pragmat. et Comcordat., p. 934.
f DuPlessis d'Argentrè, Collect, Judic. # Labbe, Concil, tom, xiv. p. 309.
108 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. INTROD.
nulled. It begins with a pompous eulogy of the Christian
virtue of obedience; after which it recites that the late Pope
Julius, finding that the Pragmatic Sanction (“which might well
be called the depravation of the kingdom of France”) was still
in force, to the peril of souls and the detriment of the Holy See,
had caused it to be examined by a Commission of Cardinals,
and had cited the French bishops, chapters, and Parliaments, to
appear as parties to the cause at Rome. The Pope goes on
to state that, after the death of his predecessor, he had judged it
right to pursue the same course, and had summoned the parties
interested by repeated monitions; in spite of which no one had yet
appeared to allege reasons in defence of the measure in question.
Under these circumstances he had determined to abolish it
altogether, after the example of Leo the Great, who, at the
Council of Chalcedon, revoked what had been rashly ordained
by the second Council of Ephesus in opposition to the Catholic
faith. The fact that the Pragmatic Sanction had been au-
thorized by the councils of Bourges and Basle was no obstacle
to its revocation; for it had not been accepted until after
the translation of the latter Council by Eugenius IV., which
destroyed its validity; since the Sovereign Pontiff has plenary
power over Councils, to convoke, translate, and dissolve them.”
In fine, he declares that the Pragmatic Sanction has no authority
whatever; he cancels all the decrees, statutes, and regulations,
contained in it; he condemns and annuls all that was done with
respect to it in the assembly of Bourges. And forasmuch as it
is necessary to Salvation that all Christians should be subject to
the Roman Pontiff, according to Holy Scripture, the Fathers,
and the constitution of Boniface VIII., “Unam sanctam,” he
therefore renews that constitution, without prejudice to that of
Clement W., beginning “Meruit,”f and forbids the faithful,
* These statements are painfully dis-
ingenuous. It is true that the Prag-
matic Sanction Was not enacted till
after the translation of the Council of
Basle; but the decrees of that Council,
upon which the Pragmatic Sanction
was framed, were passed, with two ex-
ceptions, before the translation; and
since Pope Eugenius distinctly approved
and ratified all the acts of the Council
wp to the date, it follows that all the
articles of the Pragmatic Sanction,
except two, were confirmed by the
Apostolic See, and possess the authority
of an unquestioned General Council of
the West. As to the power of the Pope
over Councils, Which this bull affirms
to rest upon canonical legislation, and
the confession of Councils themselves,
the claim is manifestly untenable, inas-
much as it is based mainly on the False
Decretals.
f Extravag. Commun., Lib. v. Tit. vii.
cap. 2, “Rex Franciae et regnicolae,
INTROD. REGISTRATION OF THE CONCORDAT. 109
clergy and laity, regular and secular, of whatever order, rank, or
condition, to make use of the Pragmatic Sanction for the future,
or to decide any cause in conformity with its provisions. The
penalty denounced was the greater excommunication and de-
privation for ecclesiastics, and the forfeiture of fiefs and all
dignities in the case of civilians. Another bull, substituting the
Concordat for the Pragmatic Sanction, was read in the same
session.
The Parliament of Paris persisted in its opposition until
it was on the brink of an open rupture with the sovereign.
A royal message, on the 12th of March, 1517,” warned the
magistrates that, if the new edict was not registered and
published without further discussion and delay, his Majesty
would be compelled to resort to extremities which would give
them cause for regret. f. It was now felt that it would be dan-
gerous further to resist the king's pleasure; the Parliament,
therefore, yielded in form ; but this was done in the most
reserved and qualified terms possible, under protest that it was
purely an act of submission to the crown, f and that the Par-
liament by no means designed thereby to authorize or approve
of the Concordat. The magistrates also declared that they
would continue to adjudicate appeals in ecclesiastical matters in
accordance with the Pragmatic Sanction as heretofore.S
Nor did this forced surrender terminate the struggle. The
execution of the Concordat was vigorously contested for years
afterwards. Cathedral and monastic chapters proceeded to elect
bishops and abbots under the provisions of the Pragmatic Sanc-
tion; and every such case became a fresh source of exasperation
between the contending powers. The disputed elections were
referred for arbitration, according to the views and feelings of
the parties interested, sometimes to the Council of State, some-
cepto Domini nostri Regis, reiteratis
per Extravagantem Unam Sanctam mon
vicibus facto, in praesentiã Domini de
amplius subjiciumtur Ecclesiae Ro-
manae, quam prius erant.”
* I.e. 1518, according to the present
mode of reckoning. The legal year
began at that time at Easter.
f Pinsson, Elist. Pragmat. et Com-
cordat., p. 929.
| The edict, when registered, was
endorsed as follows: “Lecta, publicata,
ct registrata, ex ordinatione et præ-
Tremoilliá, primi Cambellani dicti Dom.
nostri Regis, ad hoc per eum specialiter
missi. Parisiis in Parliamento, 22° die
Martii ann. Dom. 1517.”
S Pinsson, Eſist. Pragmat. et Concord.,
p. 734; Crevier, Hist. de l’Univ. de
JParis, tom. v. p. 111; Longueval, Hist.
de l'Eglise Gallic., tom. xxii. p. 71.
110 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
times to the Parliament of Paris. Conflicting judgments were
pronounced ; the Royal Council decided for the royal nominee;
the Parliament ruled that the individual on whom the choice of
the chapter had fallen was duly elected. But the Parliament,
though clamouring loudly for the “Gallican liberties,” and
making a gallant stand for national independence as against the
usurpations of Rome, was unable to maintain its ground against
the overpowering despotism of the Crown. The monarchical
authority ultimately achieved a complete triumph. In 1527 a
peremptory royal ordinance prohibited the courts of Parliament
from taking further cognisance of causes affecting elections to
consistorial benefices and conventual priories; and all such mat-
ters were transferred to the sole jurisdiction of the Council of
State.” After this the agitation against the Concordat gradually
subsided.
But although, in virtue of its compulsory registration by the
Parliament, the Concordat became part of the law of the land,
it is certain that the Gallican Church never accepted this
flagrant invasion of its liberties. On the contrary, the clergy
lost no opportunity of protesting against if, and petitioned the
crown unceasingly for the restoration of freedom of election.
In their assembly at Melun in 1579 they adopted a “remon-
strance” to Henry III., demanding this privilege as belonging
to the Church by Divine right. “It would have been for the
interest of the Pope and of the kings of France,” they argued,
“if the Concordat had never come to pass. Since that time
the Church of France has declined; heresy made its appear-
ance at the same moment, and has gained ground to the extent
which we now witness. The condition of the Church while the
elections were in force, as compared with that which has resulted
from the royal nominations, shows that it was vitally important
to maintain the primitive rule; and the foresight of our Par-
liament has thus been fully vindicated, in its refusal to approve
the abolition of the Pragmatic Sanction; which law it justly
regarded as the main Safeguard against the abuses which have
since been prevalent.”f Similar representations were made to
the throne by the synod of 1588, when the Bishop of S. Brieux
* Pinsson, Hist. Pragmat. et Concord., p. 751.
f Mémoires du Clergé de France, tom. xiii. p. 40.
INTROD. PRACTICAL FRUITS OF THE CONCORDAT. 111
reminded his Majesty that his grandfather, Francis I., when
lying on his death-bed, had acknowledged to his son, Henry II.,
that “there was nothing which weighed so heavily upon his
conscience as the measure by which he had suppressed the
free elections, and assumed the nomination to cathedrals and
monasteries.”*
The practical working of the Concordat seems to have been,
in some respects, preferable to that of the system of capitular
election, which had engendered scandalous abuses. But it
was attended with one signal disadvantage. Under the new
order of things both those who attained and those who aspired
to the high places of the Church became, almost inevitably,
courtiers; their spiritual character was in perpetual danger
of being merged in that of temporal grandees and political
functionaries. The bishops were unquestionably more mational
in their views and tendencies under the modern arrangement
—more vigilant in resisting the aggressions and encroach-
ments of the Papacy; but, in the same proportion, they were
less capable of opposing any effectual barrier to the strides by
which the monarchy was marching towards absolute dominion.
They dared not assume the attitude of fearless champions of the
constitutional rights of their order, and of the Divine economy
of the Church; they contracted a tone of servile dependence,
unqualified admiration, and fulsome flattery, in their communi-
cations with the sovereign. In addition to this, the “haute
noblesse” were enabled, by means of the new system, to esta-
blish almost a monopoly of the richer Church preferments.
Bishoprics and abbacies became practically hereditary in certain
great families, and were regarded as the Ordinary provision for
younger sons. This grave abuse was palpably fostered by the
article of the Concordat which declared princes of the blood
royal and persons of noble birth eligible for preferment without
being graduates of the Universities. A race of dignitaries was
thus created who rarely owed their promotion to any claims on
the score of theological attainment or pastoral efficiency.
Although it would be difficult to imagine anything more
diametrically opposed than the Concordat to the primitive insti-
* Mémoires du Clergé de France, tom. || “De regià ad Prælaturas nominatione
xiii. p. 134. faciendā.”. Cf. Thomassin, Vet. et Nov.
+ Textus Concordatorum, Titulus iii., | Eccles. Discip., II. Lib. ii. c. 40.
112 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. INTROD.
tutions of the Church, the circumstances under which it was
obtained were such that it might be colourably described as
a national protest against certain usurpations and exactions
hitherto practised by the court of Rome. This operated, in
great measure, as a veil to its true character. So keen was
the satisfaction caused by the removal of some of the heaviest
burdens under which the Church had groaned for centuries
through spiritual misgovernment, that the immense increase of
power which was thrown at the same time into the hands of the
civil ruler was comparatively overlooked. Thus the Concordat
was complacently quoted by its admirers as establishing the
/“Gallican liberties; ” whereas it was, in fact, the most formid-
able blow that had yet been dealt towards their extinction.*
The interests which it really served were those of modern
pseudo-Gallicanism;-a system of which it is no exaggeration
to say that it proved ruinous to the National Church of
France.f
* “Quo tempore juris communis et et Polit. Potest., Lib. v. cap. iv.
libertatis ecclesiasticae regulae funditus # The Concordat of Francis I. is
abrogatae Sunt, Pragmaticae Sanctionis ably analysed in the work of the Abbè
et sacrarum electionum antiquatione.” de Pradt, Les Quatre Concordats, tom. i.
—Edm. Richer, Defens. Lib. de Eccles. chap. xv., Paris, 1818.
( 113 )
THE GALLICAN CHURCH
FROM THE CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA TO THE REVOLUTION.
C EIA P T E R I.
THE Concordat of Bologna was substantially a triumph of the
absolutist principle, as represented by the King and the Pope,
over the constitutional, as embodied in the liberties of the Gal-
lican Church. The Pope arbitrarily conferred upon the Crown
a prerogative which was not his to bestow, obtaining in exchange
the formal repeal of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges, and, by
consequence, a tacit repudiation of the Odious Councils of Con-
stance and Basle. For the Crown the bargain was a cheap one;
since the concession thus purchased not only invested it with
the vast patronage of an enormously wealthy establishment, but
supplied, withal, a convenient instrument for controlling the
spirit of ecclesiastical independence.
Yet it was a dangerous experiment on both sides. For days
of trial were at hand. Storms were gathering on the horizon,
which threatened the stability of all principles and all institu-
tions belonging to the mediaeval structure of society; and,
among the rest, the fidelity of the Church of France to her
natural protectors, who had so ungenerously leagued together
to betray her liberties, was about to be rudely tested. The
Concordat synchronized with the commencement of the (so-called)
Reformation.
I do not purpose to enter upon a regularly detailed narrative
of the transactions of this tempestuous period—a period which
exhibited in France scenes of internecine strife, fanatical extra-
vagance, and remorseless cruelty, unparalleled elsewhere in
Europe. These are amply described in the contemporary
chronicles, and also by the various modern Writers who have
treated of the rise and progress of French Protestantism. I
shall content myself with tracing the general line of action
pursued by the National Church during these perplexing times,
Y OTL. I. I
114 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. T.
including some account of the proceedings of its representatives
at the eventful deliberations of the Council of Trent.
The outcry for ecclesiastical reform, which led eventually to
the terrible conflicts and convulsions of the sixteenth century,
was twofold;—arising partly from inveterate abuses in the prac-
tical administration of the Church, and partly from the alleged
corruption of primitive doctrine. With regard to the former
class of grievances, it was denied by none that the condition of
the Church afforded just ground for reproach: this was a patent
fact, frankly acknowledged by all right-minded Catholics. All
the world was well aware that the higher Church appointments
were made from motives of political ambition, Court favouritism,
family interest, or Sordid avarice, rather than from considerations
of real merit and the public advantage. The superior clergy
were notoriously pluralists—bishoprics and abbeys being granted
ân commendam to such an extent that residence, or any approach
to efficient pastoral supervision, was simply impossible. Simony
was systematically practised: even the Court, the Ministers of
State, the proudest nobles, were no strangers to this shameful
traffic. Rich preferments were lavished upon persons manifestly
incapable of holding them—upon laymen, married men, military
officers, young children, even upon females. These anomalousin-
cumbents enjoyed the revenues, while the duties were abandoned
to miserably-paid substitutes, styled “confidentiaires” or “custo-
dinos.” An annalist of the time assuresus that towards the middle
of the century the greater part of the benefices in France were
in the hands of persons disqualified according to the Canons.”
It was maintained, however, by the clergy, that the true
remedy for these monstrous evils was perfectly clear, and that it
lay with the State to apply that remedy. Let the Crown con-
sent to relinquish the privilege it had acquired by the Concordat,
and restore the primitive usage of free election. In that case,
they were convinced that most of the prevalent disorders would
be effectually checked, and would ere long disappear. The
Episcopate, if the elective franchise were once more entrusted
to the clergy, would consist of men distinguished by all the
qualifications for their exalted office. They would reside among
their flocks; they would enforce the wholesome discipline en-
* Pierre de l’Estoile, Registre-Journal de Henri III.
CHAP. T. REFORMING MOVEMENT. 115
joined by the Councils; they would diligently instruct the
young and ignorant; they would carefully expound the meaning
of the Church's venerable ceremonial; they would vindicate the
authority of that pure Catholic tradition which had come down
from inspired Apostles. This was the only sure way to stem
the rising tide of irreverent innovation, to extirpate heresy, and
to restore the unity of Christendom.
The clergy pressed these views on the attention of the Govern-
ment with unwearied earnestness.” And, although they were
perhaps over-sanguine in imagining that the re-establishment of
free election would act as a panacea for all the spiritual distem-
pers of the age, it must be acknowledged that their demand was
just, and their reasoning weighty.
The Crown, however, turned a deaf ear to their representa-
tions, and obstinately declined to Surrender its prerogative of
patronage. From the Secular point of view, there was no ground
for making any alteration in the existing relations between
Church and State.
But there was a second branch of the reforming movement,
namely, that which tended towards doctrinal changes, under the
plea that the Church had departed widely, in many essential
particulars, from the teaching of Holy Scripture and of the
earliest ages. This the Gallican clergy steadily discountenanced;
upholding, with unshaken consistency, the system of belief which
had prevailed for centuries throughout the Latin obedience. It
is true that there were some members of the Episcopate who
sympathized with the Lutheran opinions to a certain extent.
Such were, during the earlier stage of the agitation, Guillaume
Briçonnet Bishop of Meaux, Jacques Spifame Bishop of
Nevers, Pelissier Bishop of Maguelonne, Etienne Poncher
Bishop of Paris, afterwards Archbishop of Sens; and, at a later
period, Cardinal de Chatillon Bishop of Beauvais, St. Romain
Archbishop of Aix, Montluc Bishop of Valence, Guillard of
Chartres, and Barbançon of Pamiers. But little impression
was made upon the minds of the great body of the clergy.
In proportion as it became clear that the Protestant leaders
aimed at nothing short of religious revolution—that they were
prepared to incur all the risks of permanent divorce from
* See the Mémoires du Clergé de France, tom, ii. p. 241 et seqq.
I 2
116 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCET. CHAP. I.
the visible centre of Catholic unity—the French Church rallied
round the throne of St. Peter with intense and indomitable zeal.
The venerable Sorbonne—that “perpetual Gallican Council,”
as it has been styled *—displayed a vigilance which nothing
could elude, and uttered, with no uncertain sound, its judgments
on the various phases of heterodox speculation as they appeared.
Luther, in the course of his conferences with Cardinal Cajetan,
had spoken with great respect of the Theological Faculty of
Paris, and professed himself willing to submit his doctrine to its
verdict. The divines accordingly examined his various published
works, and in a session on the 13th of April, 1521, condemned a
series of more than one hundred propositions extracted from
them, as “heretical, Schismatical, impious, and blasphemous.” f
They pointed out, in the preface to this sentence, that
Lutheranism, in many of its characteristic features, was but a
specious reproduction of errors long since proscribed and ex-
ploded. Like the Montanists, Luther rejected the authority of
the Church; like the Manicheans, he denied the freedom of the
will ; he coincided with the Hussites in disparaging the Sacra-
ment of Penance—with the Wickliffites in repudiating Confession
—with the Catharini, the Waldenses, the Bohemians, in attack-
ing the privileges of the clergy, railing against the ecclesiastical
Courts, and cavilling at counsels of evangelical perfection. He
had the audacity to prefer his own judgment to that of the most
profoundly learned doctors of antiquity, and even to the decrees
of CEcumenical Councils;–as if the Almighty had revealed the
way of salvation exclusively to Martin Luther, and had left His
Church for fifteen centuries in ignorance of essential truth.
Proceeding to enumerate the tenets to which the censure
applied, the Sorbonne placed in the front rank that favourite
sophism of the Wittemburg professor, that inasmuch as all
Christians are (in one sense) priests, the power of the Keys
belongs to all in common, and that they all possess the same
authority with regard to preaching God's Word and admi-
nistering the Sacraments. Among other sentiments reprehended
are the following:—That the faith of the recipient constitutes
the efficacy of Sacraments. That absolution is effectual, not by
* “Le concile perpetuel des Gaules, f Duplessis d'Argentré, Collectio Ju-
l'Aréopage de l'Eglise, et le flambeau diciorum de novis Erroribus, tom, i. p.
de la foi.”—Mezerai, Abrégé Chronolog. 365.
A.D. 1521. CONDEMINATION OF LUTHERANISM. 117
virtue of what is done by the priest, but by virtue of the peni-
tent's believing that he is pardoned. That moral virtues and
speculative sciences are not truly virtues and Sciences, but rather
sins and errors. That the just man sins even in his good works,
the best possible action being nevertheless a venial sin. That
it is mistaken to say that we know not whether we are in a state
of grace; the believer ought never to be in doubt whether his
works are acceptable to God; for whosoever thus doubts commits
sin, and all his efforts are vain and worthless. That it is wrong
to say that God has laid upon us no commands which are im-
possible, since no man, however holy, has ever kept the last two
commandments of the Decalogue; notwithstanding which we
are guilty of sin in not fulfilling them. That the Church has
suffered infinite damage for hundreds of years past through
the corruption of Holy Scripture by its doctors. That the intro-
duction of Scholastic theology has led to the abandonment of
the religion of the cross. That many opinions condemned by
Councils, for instance, many of those held by John Huss and
the Bohemians, are orthodox, and cannot be lawfully censured.
That neither Pope nor Bishop, nor any human authority, can
enact the smallest ordinance as binding upon the faithful unless
they consent to it; and that whatever has been otherwise ordained
is simply tyrannical. - . -
Not content with this vigorous demonstration against Luther,
the Parisian doctors, a few years later, passed a severe censure
On the ‘Colloquies’ of the great Erasmus;–a work in which the
author, without advancing statements which could be taxed with
formal heresy, had criticised, in a style of trenchant satire, some
of the most venerated institutions of the Church. Erasmus was
denounced by the Syndic of the Faculty, Noël Béda, a man of
fervent and apparently intemperate zeal. A sharp controversy
ensued, in which Erasmus defended himself with remarkable
ingenuity, and, while avowing himself an advocate of reforma-
tion, at the same time windicated his character as an attached
and dutiful son of the Church. He concluded by appealing for
protection to Francis I. That monarch, whose generous patronage
of men of letters was one of his most estimable qualities, inter-
posed at Once, in the arbitrary fashion of the time, and ordered
the Parliament to suppress the writings of Beda. But the
Sorbonne, undeterred by this exhibition of royal partisanship,
118 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. T.
pursued their investigation of the case, and in due course pro-
nounced sentence upon thirty-two extracts of a heterodox ten-
dency from different works of Erasmus.” These related chiefly
to matters connected with the disciplinary system of the Church;
—to oaths, vows, celibacy, divorce, fasting, the observance of
festivals, and other ceremonial usages. Francis testified his
displeasure with the Faculty for their boldness on this occasion
by giving orders that a new edition of 24,000 copies of the
‘Colloquies’ should immediately be printed at Paris.
Nor did the Gallican Church fail to declare itself against the
Lutheran innovations by the more authoritative method of
synodical decision. Six Provincial Councils were held for this
purpose in one year, 1527-8, at Lyons, Paris, Bourges, Reims,
Tours, and Rouen. Of these the most celebrated is the Council
of the province of Sens, which met at Paris on the 3rd of
February, 1527, and sat till the following October, 1528.
The Metropolitan, Cardinal Du Prat, Archbishop of Sens and
Chancellor of France, presided, and was attended by six of his
suffragans, the Bishops of Paris, Chartres, Meaux, Auxerre, Troyes,
and Nevers, with the vicar-general of the Bishop of Orleans,
and a numerous assemblage of the clergy of the province.f
Sixteen decrees or canons (decreta fidei) were promulgated
by this Synod, enunciating the Catholic faith with reference to
the principal points controverted by the Protestants. These
affirm, in very precise and stringent terms, the unity and the
infallibility of the Church; that there is no covenanted salvation
beyond its pale; that it is a visible body, the Lutheran notion
of an invisible Church being “not only heretical, but the very
well-spring of all heresies;” that it is represented by General
Councils, which have the power of deciding all questions affecting
the purity of the faith, the extirpation of heresy, the reformation
of the Church, and the correction of manners; and that those
who obstimately resist them must be accounted enemies to the
faith. The synod next asserts the authority of the Church in
fixing the canon and determining the true sense of Holy Scrip-
ture; and declares that those who despise the guidance of the
Orthodox Fathers to follow that of their own private understand-
* Dulboulai, Hist, de l’Univ. de Paris, tom. vi. D'Argentré, Collect, Judiciorum.
i Labbe, Concil, tom, xiv. p. 444 et seqq.
A, D, 1527–8. PROVINCIAL COUNCIL OF SENS. 119
ing are to be classed with schismatics and heretics. Further, it
establishes the necessity and validity of Catholic tradition, and
condemns those who reject a doctrine or observance under the
pretext that it is not explicitly laid down in Holy Writ. The
Canon on the Sacraments (Decret. 10) defines their number,
seven, and explains in what manner each of them is a true
instrument or vehicle of Divine grace. A separate article
teaches that, in the Mass, the Body and Blood of Christ are
truly offered by the priest as the proper and peculiar sacrifice
of the new law. The 15th decree maintains the real freedom of
man's will, yet without excluding thereby the action of Divine
grace. The human will, being assisted by the Secret inspiration
of prevenient grace,” draws nigh to God, and prepares itself for
that sanctifying grace by which it is at length accepted unto life
eternal. It is true that God draws us towards Himself, but not
by constraint; it is true that He predestines, elects, and calls
us, but He glorifies those only who, being rooted in faith and
charity, have “made their calling and election sure” by good
works. The 16th and last dogmatic decree affirms that faith is
then only effectual to salvation when it “worketh by love;”
since the righteous will be accepted at the last day, not because
they have believed, but because they have abounded in good
works. “It is not, therefore, faith alone that justifies, but rather
charity; and good works not only are not sins, but in adults are
necessary to Salvation, and may in that respect be considered
meritorious.”f .
The decrees are followed by a catalogue of the various errors
ventilated by the heretics of the day, in opposition to the fore-
going doctrines of the Church. The acts of the Council conclude
with an earnest exhortation to the princes of Christendom to
labour for the extermination of heretics. “If they would consult
their own safety—if they desired to maintain intact the rights
of their own sovereignty—if they would preserve the nations
Subject to them in peace and tranquillity—let them protect the
Catholic faith with a strong arm, and manfully subdue (debellare)
its enemies.”
Thus distinctly and decisively did the Gallican Church
* “Misericordiae praevenientis auxilio suffulta, et interiori quodam et occulto
Secretioris inspirationis afflatu contacta.” -
f “Eatenus adultis ad salutem necessaria, ut meriti quoque rationem non
respuant.” - -
120 . THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. I.
express her mind on the eve of the great battle between the
prescriptive authority of the Past and the new-fledged independ-
ence of thought engendered by the Reformation. The reader will
not fail to observe that, in the proceedings of this important
Synod, while language of the most unqualified kind is employed
to set forth the supreme jurisdiction of the Church Catholic,
and of General Councils as its representatives, no mention is to
be found of the dogma of the absolute Supremacy, much less
of the personal infallibility, of the Pope. The Ultramontane
theory of Church government—enunciated as it had been with
the utmost technical precision by Cardinals Torquemada and
Cajetan—was professed at this time, to its full extent, by the
Roman Curia and its accredited divines; and it is true, more-
over, that since the last Lateran Council a certain reaction had
set in against the limitations attempted to be imposed on the
Bontifical authority by the Councils of Constance, Basle, and
Bourges. Nevertheless, the principles of Gerson and D'Ailly
—representing, as they did in the main, those of the primitive
undivided Church — were still predominant in France. By
opposing to the innovators that authority which, beyond all
question, belongs to the collective Episcopate (since that body
occupies by succession the place of the Apostles*), the Gallican
prelates took their stand on a vantage-ground from which
nothing could dislodge them. Those who found it necessary to
defy the consentient tradition of the whole Catholic world con-
fessed thereby the untenableness of their own position; and it
is not to be wondered at that, ere long, they pursued such per-
verse reasonings to their logical conclusion, and openly seceded
from the visible communion of the Church. :
The project of a General Council of the West, for the settle-
ment of the momentous questions at issue between the Church
and the Protestants, was agitated for many years, as is well
known, before it was found possible to carry it into execution.
The idea was originally propounded by the Lutherans of Ger-
many. It was formally sanctioned by the Diet of Spires in
1529, and it was the theme of lengthened consultations between
Charles W. and Pope Clement VII, when they met at Bologna
* “Apud nos Apostolorum locum Episcopi tement.” S. Jerome, Epist, xxvii.
ad Marcellam. Opp. tom, iv. Pt. II. p. 65.
A.D. 1530. PROJECT OF A GENERAL COUNCIL. 121
in the following year. Personally, Clement was opposed to the
holding of a Council, for reasons which he fully explained in a
letter to the Emperor, preserved by Martin Du Bellay.” He
was not in a position, however, to resist the repeated and urgent
demands of Charles; and, after much hesitation, he signified
a reluctant consent upon certain conditions. These were, that
the place of meeting should be on the Italian side of the Alps;
that those who attended the Council should engage beforehand
to submit to its decrees; and that, in the mean time, no in-
novation should be allowed in Germany with regard to points
of controverted doctrine. A nuncio was now despatched to
bespeak the co-operation of the King of France in the design,
which was readily promised ; and Francis appealed accordingly
to the Landgrave of Hesse, and other Protestant princes with
whom he was in alliance, to accept the Council on the proffered
terms, as the only chance remaining for the restoration of
religious unity. But the Protestants declined these overtures;
or rather, they insisted, as an indispensable condition of their
adhesion, that the Council should be held in Germany; adding,
moreover, other stipulations which the Pope pronounced inad-
missible. And, in truth, it must be confessed that matters had
by this time reached such a point that the scheme of recon-
ciling the Reformers to the Church by the expedient of a
Council was simply chimerical. It is true that Luther and his
friends had demanded that mode of arbitration in the early
days of the movement; but at that date they had not taken
the decisive steps which placed them in open antagonism to
the Church. By their subsequent proceedings, in separating
from the Apostolically-descended hierarchy, and inventing a
novel form of ministry unsanctioned by a valid succession, they
rejected the essential principles upon which alone the action
of a Council is legitimately based. Lutheran and Calvinist
sectaries could not well be admitted to sit and vote in synod
on equal terms with Catholic prelates; and even if this difficulty
could have been overcome, there was little or no prospect of a
Satisfactory result, inasmuch as the recusants did not acknow-
ledge the Supreme authority of General Councils; whatever
* Mémoires de M. Du Bellay, Liv. Liv. i. § 47 (Edit. Courayer). Ellies.
Dupin, Hist, Eccles, tom. vi. chap.
iv.
f Fra Paolo, Hist, du C. de Trente, xxiii.
122 TEIB. GALLECAN CEIURCEH. CHAP. T.
conclusions, therefore, might be arrived at, they might disallow
or evade them at pleasure. - -
Nevertheless, the negotiations were not discontinued. Paul III.,
who succeeded Clement, seems to have been sincere and earnest
in endeavouring to conduct them to a practical effect; but his
efforts were long counteracted by one grave obstacle, namely,
the bitter personal enmity which reigned between the leading
princes of Christendom, the Emperor and the King of France.
Both the civil and the ecclesiastical policy of Francis I. were
full of inconsistencies; in fact he may be said to have had no
real policy except that of blind, passionate hostility to Charles W.
This is the master-key to all the anomalies of his reign with
regard to the treatment of the Protestant Reformers. If he en-
couraged them, it was in order to strengthen his own domestic
interests and to embarrass and distress his rival; if he perse-
cuted them (and this he did at times with merciless rigour),
it was with a view to curry favour with the Pope, whose good
graces might otherwise have been monopolised by the Emperor.
For upwards of twenty years, with brief intervals, did Francis,
single-handed, struggle for predominance in Europe against
the concentrated strength of the Germanic empire; and it was
not till the Peace of Crespy, in 1544, that the two monarchs
could be brought to agree on any plan of combined action for
the suppression of heresy and the pacification of the Church.
Paul III. now hastened to convoke at Trent, for the spring of
the year following, the General Council which had been so
importunately demanded of him and his predecessors.
No sooner, however, had the Synod commenced its sittings,
than it appeared that the feud between the two great Catholic
potentates, instead of being extinguished, was merely trans-
ferred to a new scene. The emperor, as the principal promoter
of the Council, naturally desired that his influence should pre-
dominate in it; Francis strained every nerve to prevent this,
and to establish his own ascendency. The Pope, meanwhile,
maintaining an attitude of vigilant neutrality between the
competitors, laboured so to shape and control the proceedings
of the assembly as to subserve above all things the interests of
the Holy See.
Feelings of jealousy sprang up ere long between the Pope
and Charles, in consequence of the advantages gained by the
A.D. 1545. COUNCIL OF TRENT. 123
latter over the revolted Protestants in the brief campaign of
1547. Paul had supported him in this movement; but he now
began to view the success of his arms with apprehension, lest
it should tend to reduce the Council at Trent altogether into
subjection to the Imperial will. At the risk, therefore, of giving
mortal offence to Charles, he availed himself of the first plausible
pretext for removing the Synod from Trent to Bologna, a city
within his own dominions. The emperor protested vehemently,
and most of the German bishops refused, by his orders, to quit
Trent. Francis, for the sole reason that the emperor's influence
was less likely to prevail at Bologna, seconded the Papal policy;
and the result of these intrigues was that the deliberations were
suspended for the space of nearly four years.
The action of the Gallican Church was much embarrassed
by these political complications. During the earlier sessions
at Trent it was represented by only four prelates—the Arch-
bishop of Aix, the Bishops of Clermont, Agde, and Rennes;
and in the memorable decrees concerning original sin and
justification it cannot be said to have taken any effective
part. Francis, however, sent three ambassadors, one of whom,
Pierre Danes, a man of Superior talent and learning, made an
energetic speech on taking his seat. He descanted on the
eminent services which the kings of France had rendered to
the Church in all ages, eulogised the religious zeal of the
reigning monarch, and pleaded powerfully for the preservation
of the well-known rights and privileges enjoyed, by immemorial
tradition, both by Church and State in France.*
The Cardinal-Legate Del Monte, in reply, thanked the am-
bassador for the Sentiments he had expressed in the name of
his sovereign; assured him that the Concordat granted by
Leo X, as well as all other privileges, should be preserved to
his Most Christian Majesty, “so far as equity and the present
position of affairs would admit ;” and pledged himself that the
proceedings of the Council should be such as to give the king
no reason to repent of the affection and sympathy which he had
testified towards the Church. -
Henry II. trod in the footsteps of his father; and during
his reign the tide of animosity between France, the Empire,
* Fra Paolo, Liv. ii., § 71.
124 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. I.
and the Papacy, ran higher than ever. Hostilities broke out
upon the subject of the duchy of Parma; the King of France
pertinaciously supporting the cause of Ottavio Farnese, whom
the Pope (Julius III.) had denounced as a rebellious vassal of
the Holy See. The emperor—more for the sake of opposing
France than for any other reason—sided with Julius, and
declared war against Parma in May, 1551. At this juncture
the Pope, in compliance with the wishes of Charles, determined
to reassemble the Council of Trent, and took measures for that
purpose, contrary to all precedent, without previous consulta-
tion with the King of France, “the eldest son of the Church.””
In the “bull of resumption * the only prince mentioned by
name was “our beloved son in Christ, Charles Emperor of the
Romans.” Henry, indignant at this treatment, not only refused
to permit the prelates of his realm to obey the summons to
Trent, but ordered them to repair to their dioceses and prepare
for the celebration of a National Council, which he purposed to
convoke without delay.f. As a further mark of resentment, he
prohibited, by letters-patent, the transmission of money in any
shape from France to Rome. Upon this the Pope despatched.
an envoy to explain and adjust matters; but Henry was not to
be pacified ; he persisted in standing aloof from the Council,
and pointed out (what was, indeed, true) that, in the absence
of the Gallican episcopate, and deprived of the co-operation of
the “eldest son of the Church,” that assembly could not be
regarded as Oecumenical.
At the same time he assured his Holiness, through his
ambassadors at Rome, that he was by no means averse to a
General Council, provided it were such as it ought to be, for
the advantage, repose, and reunion of the Universal Church—
for the increase and preservation of true religion, and the ex-
* Henry, however, had declared
faire à la Germanie et aux autres roy-
strongly in opposition to the Council.
aumes qui en ont besoin a le requérir.
See his letter to De Termes, his am-
bassador at Rome, in Ribier, Lettres et
Mémoires d’I'stat, tom. ii. “Je n'ai
que faire de demander le Concile, pour
ce que mom royaume n'en a point de
besoin, 6tant tous mes subjets bons
Catholiques et très obéissants a l'Eglise;
et s'il y en a aucuns desvoyants, ils
Sont si bien chastićs que les autres y
doivent prendre exemple. Mais c’est a
Et quant à la manière de vivre des
ministres de l'Eglise qui Sont en mon
royaume, si reformation y estait re-
quise, il y a en iceluy un assez grand
Hombre de prelats, gens de Saincte wie
et relligion, pour y pourvoir, Sans pour
ce se mettre en peine d’assembler un
Concile Général.”
# Fra Paolo, Liv. iv. § 3.
A.D. 1551. PROTEST OF HENRI II. AT TRENT. 125
tirpation of prevailing errors and abuses;–the assembling of
such a Council was an object which he desired above all things.”
In short, the real ground of Henry's opposition was precisely
that of his predecessor; that in an ecclesiastical assembly
sitting at Trent, the views, influence, and authority of the
German Emperor would to a certainty predominate.
At the first session of the restored synod (September 1, 1551)
Jacques Amyot, Abbot of Bellozane,f made his appearance as
special envoy from the King of France, and presented a letter
addressed “to the most holy and venerable fathers in Christ
of the Tridentine A38embly” (conventùs). This superscription,
being deemed offensive to the dignity of the Council, provoked
angry comments, and it was with difficulty that the document
was at length received and read. It contained an exposition
of the reasons by which Henry felt himself precluded from
taking part in the proceedings; reflected somewhat severely on
the conduct of the Pope; renewed the protest which had been
made previously by the French representatives at Rome; and
concluded by stating that his Majesty and the Gallican Church
could not recognize the Council as legitimate, and must,
therefore, decline to be in any way bound by its decrees. .
The fathers of Trent, in reply, expressed their deep regret
that opposition should have arisen in a quarter from which the
Council might reasonably look for cordial support; observed
that the road to Trent was as freely open to the prelates of
France as to those of any other nation; and besought them,
even at the eleventh hour, to obey the Pope's citation, and join
the deliberations of their brethren.
Thus hampered by the Secular dissensions of the day, the
French Church found itself excluded from all share in the
eventful debates which preceded the Tridentine definitions on
the Sacrament of the Eucharist and Transubstantiation.S
Indeed the difficulties arising from the religious aspect of
affairs at this period involved the Government in a course of
* See the king's letter to Cardinal de | Charles IX., and Henry III. Charles
Tournon and De Termes, the ambas- IX. made him “Grand Aumonier *
sador, in Ribier, Lettres et Mémoires and Bishop of Auxerre.
d'Estat, tom. ii. p. 331. † De Thou, Liv. viii. Fra Paolo, Liv.
# The learned translator of Plutarch's iv. § 7.
Lives. He was also preceptor to the § Concil, Trident, Sess, xiii,
royal children, afterwards Francis II.,
126 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CFIAP. I.
conduct which was glaringly—almost ludicrously—self-contra-
dictory. At the very moment when Henry was thus embroiled
with the Pope, and exhibiting his independence by forbidding
his subjects to send money to Rome, he was cruelly persecuting
the Calvinists, who had but gone a few steps farther, and re-
nounced the authority of the Roman Pontiff altogether. Again,
while proscribing Protestantism, under the severest penalties,
in his own dominions, he was making common cause with
Maurice of Saxony and his confederates, who, as declared
champions of Protestantism, had defied the Emperor, and
plunged Germany into civil war. Nor was he at all more
logical in vaunting his privileges as the “eldest son of the
Church,” while in the same breath he forbade the bishops of
France to repair to a regularly-constituted Council, and even
threatened to convene a local assembly in direct opposition to
it. Such were some of the singular incongruities which marked
the earlier stages of the Reformation. So true is it, that in
estimating most of the great public acts which helped to mould
the destinies of Europe at that perplexing crisis, we must refer
them to political, rather than to purely religious, considerations.
Even princes who were thoroughly Catholic at heart were often
driven to belie their convictions, and act injuriously to the real
interests of the Church, by motives which on examination prove
at best to have been utterly worldly,–Suggested by mere self
love and personal pique.
In the sixteenth session, April 28th, 1552, a Papal Bull was
read announcing the suspension of the Council for the second
time. The reason assigned was the sudden outbreak of hostili-
ties between the Emperor and the Elector of Saxony. The
latter prince (who was in alliance, as before mentioned, with
the King of France), had routed the Imperialists in several
actions, and entered Augsburg in triumph on the 1st of April.
These tidings spread consternation at Trent, and numbers of
prelates and divines fled from the city in extreme confusion.
The Council, though nominally suspended for two years only,
now remained in abeyance till the accession of Pope Pius IV.,
whose bull, issued November 29, 1560, directed it to reassemble
at Trent at Easter the year ensuing.
A.D. 1555, STRENGTH OF FRENCEI PROTESTANTISM. 127
C EIAIPTER II.
DURING this interval, the disciples of Calvin, encouraged by the
success of their co-religionists in Germany, and by the vacil-
lating conduct of the authorities at home, propagated their
opinions to a prodigious extent in France. It was in the year
1555, as we learn from Theodore Beza,” that the first place of
public Protestant worship was opened at Paris. The example
was contagious, and conventicles were speedily established at
Orleans, Rouen, Blois, Tours, Bourges, Agen, and other towns.
Consistories were next organized; synods were held; and ere
long the schism from the Church began to assume the appear-
ance of a settled institution. How to deal with a movement
whose aggressions became daily more audacious and more for-
midable was, for Catholics, the all-absorbing problem of the day.
The numerical strength of French Protestantism, in the
middle of the sixteenth century, has been variously estimated;
some writers carrying it as high as the tenth, or even the
eighth, part of the entire population, others depressing it as
low as the seventeenth. Taking the mean between these
extremes, the sectaries probably mustered about one million and
a half.f
Prom the first their cause had been supported by personages
of exalted rank and station; but by degrees it acquired zealous
partizans in all grades of Society. It was warmly patronized
by the Savans—by those who had borne the most active part in
the recent “renaissance” of art, science, and classical learning.
It had made many notable converts among the magistracy and
“gens de la robe; ” and it was encouraged generally by men of
education, capacity, and enlarged views, who, without endorsing
* Beza, Histoire des Eglises Reformees, France, tom. ix. p. 201. In 1562 there
Liv. iii. p. 211. were about 8000 Huguenots in Paris;
t Lettres de Prosper de Saint Croix which city contained at that time
(Archives Curieuses de l'Eſist. de France, 300,000 inhabitants. Sismondi, Elist.
tom. vi. p. 48). Martin, Hist, de des Français, tom. xviii. p. 256.
12S THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. II.
all the extravagances of Luther and Calvin, sincerely advocated
a practical regeneration of the Church, and desired to see that
great work conducted by the Church herself. The most
powerful promoters of the Reformation in France—morally and
intellectually speaking—were to be found in this latter class;
and had their counsels prevailed in the actual direction of the
course of affairs, it may be safely affirmed that the history of
the second half of the sixteenth century would have worn a
very different complexion. - 4.
But the predominant influences were, unfortunately, of a more
questionable kind. The agitation for reform in the Church was
complicated, from its commencement, with political interests,
ambitious intrigues, private enmities, and selfish passions. The
leaders on both sides professed to be actuated by the highest -
and most sacred principles; nor need we doubt that religion
was homestly felt to be the most important issue at stake. But
religious concerns were so speciously mixed up with considera-
tions of a worldly nature, that the lower motive was continually
mistaken for the higher; and thus, in the case both of Catholics
and Protestants, the cause nominally advocated was in reality
endangered and betrayed.
The Huguenots (as the French reformers now began to be
called) had up to this time been simply a sect of dissenters from
the national Church; but ere long they were driven, by the
force of circumstances, into the position of a seditious faction in
the State. The heads of the party were two malcontent princes
of the blood-royal, burning with indignation against a rival
family of scarcely less illustrious lineage, which had adroitly pos-
sessed itself of the chief direction of affairs. It was perfectly
natural that the King of Navarre and his brother the prince of
Condé should aspire to the enjoyment of that political conse-
quence which seemed to befit their near relationship to the
throne. It was no less natural that they should endeavour to
transfer to themselves that authority which they deemed to
have been unfairly usurped by the House of Guise. But
to suppose that the governing spring of their conduct was
religion, would be an egregious misconception of the truth. It
cost them nothing, on the score of conscience, to profess the Cal-
vinist creed; while it so happened that that profession opened a
most promising prospect for the advancement of their worldly
A.D. 1555. TEIE PARTY LEADERS. 129
fortunes; and it was the pursuit of this latter object which at
length misled them into armed insurrection and treason.
The Admiral de Coligny and his brother François D’Andelot
were, it is true, men of a higher stamp : Protestants by strong
conviction; conscientiously devoted to the cause of what they
considered to be essential truth. But they were also deeply
imbued with the spirit of political partisanship ; they thirsted
for ascendency and power; they were swayed by personal
jealousies and deadly animosities. And in consequence, they
were not unfrequently blind to the real character of acts and
counsels, which, but for the mischievous Sophistry of party
spirit, they would probably have been the first to condemn.
The conduct of those who held the reins of government
betrayed similar weaknesses, and was manifestly prompted by
secondary and unworthy motives. Ambition, haughtiness,
rapacity, cruelty, were the besetting sins of the House of
Lorraine. These princes claimed descent by direct succession
from Charlemagne; and not only esteemed themselves the
equals in blood of the reigning family in France, but even
maintained pretensions, more or less plausible, to the reversion
of their inheritance.* -
The two elder sons of the first Duke of Guise—Francis, the
second duke, and Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine—were dis-
tinguished no less by their talents and personal attainments
than by their lofty birth. The duke was an able military com-
mander, and had gained universal popularity by his gallant
defence of Metz against the emperor, his recapture of Calais
from the English, and other brilliant exploits. His brother,
the Cardinal, possessed a character abounding with splendid
qualities, which, however, were darkly shaded by Strange in-
consistencies, if not by Scandalous vices. He was a dexterous,
though not a profound, politician; an erudite Scholar, an
accomplished theologian, a practised Orator, and gifted with
singularly attractive manners. On the other hand, he was
inordinately vain; intensely selfish; an adept in the arts of
dissimulation, which he used without scruple; and generally
believed to be irregular in his private morals. Born in 1524,
Charles of Lorraine was preferred at the age of fifteen to the
* See La Place, Commentaire de l’Estat de Religion, Liv, ii.
WOL. I. R
130 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
Archbishopric of Reims;–a somewhat gross specimen of the
abuse of Church patronage by the Crown since the Concordat.
On the accession of Henry II. he was made a member of the
Council of State, and was soon afterwards elevated to the Con-
clave by Pope Paul III. In addition to the see of Reims, the
Cardinal held in commendam that of Metz, besides several rich
abbeys. His ecclesiastical revenue was reckoned at 300,000
livres (equal to about three times that amount according to the
present value of money). His private fortune, moreover, was
considerable. -
The influence of this great dignitary was paramount with the
clergy, who looked up to him with boundless confidence as
the all-powerful protector of their interests. The ecclesiastical
administration, and indeed the whole internal government of
|France, was in his hands.” -
The Cardinal had accustome himself—like other famous
statesmen before and since his time, to identify the public
welfare with his own tenure of the reins of power; and if he
hated and persecuted the Huguenots, it was not so much
because they were heretics, as because they were his political
adversaries. Not that Charles of Lorraine was at all deficient
in zeal for Catholicism ; but with him the Supremacy of the
Guises was the first object, the supremacy of Catholicism was
the Second. The popular pamphleteers of the day represented
him to the multitude as a special instrument raised up by Provi-
dence for the defence and preservation of the Faith; hence his
severities against the Huguenots passed with the world for
proofs of ardent devotedness to the cause of religion, whereas
they resulted mainly from a reckless determination to trample
down and annihilate the party which opposed his monopoly of
power.
Henry II., at the instigation of the Cardinal, now embarked
in a systematic course of fierce persecution. An attempt was
made, in 1555, to enforce the execution of all ecclesiastical
sentences against heretics without permitting any appeal to the
civil magistrate. This was firmly resisted by the heads of
the parliament of Paris, who maintained, in a remonstrance to
* Mémoirés de Castelnau, Liv. i. chap. I. Auvert, Vies deg Hommes Illustres:
Biograph. Universelle. -
A.D. 1555. PERSECUTION OF THE HUGUENOTS. I31
the king, that it belonged to the temporal courts to adjudicate
finally in all causes without exception; though they acknow-
ledged the right of the spiritual authorities to define what con-
stituted the crime of heresy. The secular judges had hitherto
been relentless in condemning the Calvinists; and it is a
remarkable proof of their altered tone of feeling with regard to
the great controversy of the day, that on this occasion they
deprecated rigorous measures, and even proceeded to lecture
the sovereign and his ministers for their intolerance. “We
take the liberty to remark,” said they, “that, inasmuch as the
infliction of these penalties has hitherto been ineffectual to
correct error, it would be more reasonable to imitate the
example of the Primitive Church, which, instead of employ-
ing fire and sword for the defence of religion, relied for that
purpose on purity of doctrine and the Saintly lives of its chief
pastors. Let the bishops be more sedulous in personally super-
intending the flock committed to them; let them faithfully
preach the word of God, or at least take care that this duty is
conscientiously discharged by others; let them never promote
to the priesthood any but men whom they know to be able and
willing to fulfil their ministry without resorting to the services.
of substitutes. Such measures would have a happy effect, we
doubt not, in arresting the progress of heresy; but if these are
neglected, the most peremptory laws and edicts will assuredly
fail to supply their place.” This spirited appeal was successful,
and the execution of the edict was suspended.*
The Cardinal, thus foiled, next applied himself to the task of
resuscitating in France the terrible tribunal of the Inquisition.
The machinery of the “Holy Office’ was still extant, and
scarcely differed from the original form in which it had been
cast by Innocent III. and the Dominicans; but, practically, it
was obsolete and powerless. The object of the Cardinal was to
revive it in accordance with the extreme type which it had
assumed in Spain under the fostering hands of Philip II., the
success of whose crusade against heresy was mainly due to its
agency. A bull was procured from Paul IV., in 1557, nomi-
nating the Cardinals of Lorraine, Bourbon, and Chatillon, grand
* De Thou, Hist, Univ., Liv, xvi.
132 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
Inquisitors in France, and empowering them to hold courts
in every diocese, from whose decision there was to be no
appeal; the secular arm was simply to carry their sentences
into effect. A “bed of justice” was held to enforce the regis-
tration of this stern decree of the Pope ; but the Parliament,
in the very act of acquiescence, took care to strip it of its
most tyrannical provision. They stipulated that, in the case
of laymen, the constitutional resource of an “appel comme
d’abus” from the Inquisitorial tribunals should continue to be
available.” - - -
This second defeat only served to impel the king and his
advisers to still more odious extremities. By this time the
“new learning” had made several proselytes on the judicial
bench, and the consequence was that the proceedings of the
different courts of Parliament were frequently at variance.
The Grande Chambre, in which the judges were strict Catholics,
condemned the Huguenots without mercy; the “Tournelle”
was more lenient, admitted extenuating circumstances, and
rarely or never inflicted the punishment of death. At one of
the periodical meetings of the Chambers, called “Mercuriales,”f
the whole question of the treatment of offences against religion
was discussed at length; when it appeared that the majority of
the magistrates were in favour of a mild interpretation of the
existing laws. Upon this the Cardinal of Lorraine urged
the king to interpose with a high hand in Support of his own
edicts; representing that such a step was especially necessary
at that moment, in order to vindicate his zeal for the Church in
the eyes of the King of Spain, with whom he had just concluded
the treaty of Château-Cambresis. Swayed by these counsels,
Henry, on the 10th of June, 1559, proceeded in person to the
parliament, where a memorable scene ensued. The magistrates
having been invited to declare their sentiments, Anne Dubourg,
* Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises,
tom. xiii. p. 494.
# The “Tournelle” was the ordinary
criminal court of the Parliament of
IParis; so named because the judges
trates belonging to the Parliament, for
the purpose of reviewing, and, if neces-
§ary, censuring and correcting, the
judicial acts of the six months pre-
ceding. Originally they took place
composing it were supplied by rotation
(a tour) by the other chambers.
I The “Mercuriales,” so called from
being held on Wednesday (dies Mer-
ourii), were meetings of all the magis-
every month; latterly twice a year,
after the Easter and autumn vacations.
From this practice the word “mer-
Curiale” obtained the general sense
of a lecture or reprimand.
A.D. 1559. ARRESTS AND TRIALS FOR HERESY. 133
one of the clerical councillors,” a man of distinguished family
and character, made an indiscreet and irritating speech, in
the course of which he alluded, by no means obscurely, to the
Scandal of the King's immoral life. Another councillor, Louis
Dufaur, followed in the same strain, and declaimed forcibly
against the abuses which disgraced the Church. The advice
of the majority was that the king should employ all his
influence to procure forthwith a free CEcumenical Council;
and that, meanwhile, penal proceedings against heretics should
be suspended, and liberty of conscience proclaimed throughout
the realm. -
Henry, in a transport of rage, caused Dubourg and Dufaur
to be arrested on the spot. Three of their colleagues were
seized at their own houses the same day; three more Saved
themselves by flight. A special Commission, presided over by
the Bishop of Paris, was appointed to try the prisoners for
heresy; and Anne Dubourg, the most conspicuous of their
number, was selected as the victim. The king, wild with
passion, protested that he would, with his own eyes, see him
burnt at the stake before a week was past.f -
Henry was not permitted to fulfil this savage threat. His
own life was cut short by an accidental injury at a tournament,
and he expired on the 10th of July, 1559.
Under his youthful successor, Francis II., the power of the
Guises rose to its highest pitch. The Queen-Consort, Mary
Stuart, was their niece, daughter of their sister Mary of
Lorraine. Her empire over her feeble husband was unbounded;
and she, in her turn, was completely under the dominion of her
uncles.
The religious agitation now increased alarmingly. One of
the presidents of the Parliament, belonging to the party opposed
to Dubourg, was assassinated in the street at noon day; and the
Huguenots, though without direct proof, were credited with
the crime. This outrage sealed the fate of Dubourg. His
trial was hastened; he was capitally condemned, and, after
* A certain number of “conseillers- f La Place, Estat de la Religion, Liv.
clercs" were attached to each of the i. De Thou, Hist. Univ., Liv. xxii,
Parliamentary Courts, with the excep- Mémoires de Condé, tom, i.
tion of the “Tournelle.”
134 - TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
vainly appealing from the sentence, was executed on the Place
de Grève. . -
Upon the death of Dubourg there followed almost imme-
diately an explosion of the various elements of strife which had
long threatened the peace of society in France. The treason-
able enterprise called the conspiracy of Amboise (March 1560),
though undertaken in the name of religion, was a general com-
bination of all parties who, for whatever reason, were hostile
to the government of the Guises. Its principal cause, how-
ever, was undoubtedly religious partisanship. The Huguenot
leaders, with a view to remove any scruples of conscience
which might perplex their followers, obtained opinions from
certain lawyers and divines of their persuasion, to the effect
that when a sovereign, too young to govern in person, is held
in bondage by usurping ministers, it is lawful to deliver him
from their yoke by force of arms, provided the step be sanc-
tioned by the princes of the blood or the Estates of the realm.”
On the strength of this assurance, measures were concerted for
taking possession of the Château of Blois, where the court was
sojourning, and seizing the persons of the Duke of Guise and
the Cardinal of Lorraine, who were either to be put to death,
imprisoned, or banished from France. The young king was
then to be placed under the tutelage of the Bourbons, who were
to succeed to the management of affairs. The States-General
were to be summoned forthwith ; effective reforms, civil and
ecclesiastical, were to be inaugurated, and complete toleration,
independence, and equality were to be secured to the “new
religion.” -
The plot was betrayed at the last moment to the Guises, and
was defeated with ease in the very act of execution. A ruth-
less butchery of the unfortunate prisoners followed; and the
insurrectionary spirit was quelled for the moment by the
severity of these acts of vengeance. -
From the conspiracy of Amboise may be dated the com-
mencement of the miserable “Wars of Religion.” And the
reader will do well to take special note of the fact that the cause
of the Reformation was thus necessarily identified in the eyes
* De Thou, Liv. XXV. Mémoires de Condé, tom, i. ann. 1560. Th. Beza, Hist.
Locles., Liv. iii. -
A.D. 1560. CATHERINE DE MEDICIS. - 135
of the Government, and of the great mass of the nation, with
that of political disaffection and sedition.
This character—impressed upon it by the misguided counsels
and fanatical excesses of its friends—it never afterwards lost;
indeed, the subsequent course of events developed it more dis-
tinctly. Those who study dispassionately the records of the time
can scarcely avoid the conclusion that it was the turbulent and
offensive attitude maintained by the Huguenots towards the
civil power, even more than any prejudice arising from religion,
that brought about their decisive overthrow as a party, and the
ultimate triumph of the ancient faith.
Upon the death of Francis II. (Dec. 5, 1560) a remarkable
change took place in the posture of affairs. The Supreme
authority passed from the hands of the Guises into those of
the Queen-Mother, Catherine de Medicis, -a personage who
had hitherto been of no importance in the state, and whose real
character was unknown. The Guises, though not altogether
deprived of power, were reduced to a secondary position. The
Bourbon princes, who had only just escaped condign punish-
ment as traitors by the opportune demise of the crown, were
now admitted to the council-board, and invested with high
dignities. The Constable Montmorency and his nephew the
Admiral de Coligny re-appeared at Court, and were received with
distinguished honour. Catherine's policy (well worthy of her
fellow-countryman Machiavelli, whose writings probably sug-
gested it) was to balance the great rival houses against each
other, allowing neither to preponderate, and thus to secure the
real sovereignty to herself and her immediate confidants.
There existed in France, from the earliest days of the Reform-
ing movement, a party disposed to moderate counsels; averse
to persecution, anxious for practical improvements on a broad
and Safe basis, attached generally to the ancient Church, but
at the same time strongly opposed to the pretensions of Papal
absolutism. This was known by the name of the “Tiers-parti.”
It was the same which developed afterwards into the famous
faction of the “Politiques,” and played so decisive a part in
the struggles of the “League.” On the accession of Charles
IX., the Tiers-parti found itself suddenly in the ascendant. At
its head was one of the most enlightened and disinterested men
of the time, Michel de l'Hôpital, who, by the favour of the
136 THE GALLICAN CHURCH,
CHAP. II.
Queen-Mother, and without opposition from the Guises, had
just been created Chancellor of France. On assuming that
high office, De l'Hôpital avowed himself a friend to toleration,
and willing to maké reasonable concessions to the professors of
the “new religion.” As a first step he procured a meeting
of Notables at Fontainebleau, where it was resolved to con-
voke without delay the States-General of the realm, and also
a National Council, in which the Huguenots were to be fairly
represented.*
The States met at Orleans on the 13th of December. The
Chancellor, in his opening speech, dwelt earnestly and elo-
quently on the duty of mutual forbearance, patience, and
charity; recommended that invidious party names, such as
Lutheran, Huguenot, Papist, be for ever abolished; inveighed
with grave severity against those who sought to propagate
religious opinion by sedition and physical force; hinted that
the restoration of discipline among the clergy would be found
one of the most effective weapons against heresy; pointed out
that theological controversies could only be decided by a Coun-
cil; and pledged himself that no exertion should be spared on
the part of the Government to procure the application of that
remedy to existing evils.
The fruit of the deliberations which ensued was the cele-
brated “Ordonnance of Orleans.” Many of its provisions
were identical with those which had been demanded by the
minority of the Parliamentary magistrates at the “Merr.
curiale” two years before ;-a proof of the rapid growth
of the tolerant school of opinion represented by l'Hôpital.
It proclaimed an amnesty for the past, the chief conspi-
rators of Amboise being alone excepted. Prisoners for reli-
gious offences were restored to liberty, and those who had
been banished on like grounds were authorized to return to
France, provided they would conduct themselves like good
Catholics in future. If they declined this condition, they might
* This expedient was warmly advo-
cated by Charles de Marillac, Arch-
bishop of Vienne, a man of remarkable
foresight and Sagacity. “Notre mal
Ilous presse si fort,” he said, “le feu
estant allumé en plusieurs endroicts du
royaume, que mous me pouvons attendre
un remède estoigné et incertain; tout
ainsi qu'un malade de fiebvre continue,
ou autre maladie aiguë, ne peult
attendre qu'on soit allé quérir un
medlecin bien loin, leguel on n’est
certain encores qu'il Viendra. Il faut
domc Venir au Concile National.”—La.
Place, Commentaire sur l'Estal de la
Religion, Liv. iii. -
A.D. 1561. STATES-GENERAL OF ORLEANS. 137
sell their property and take up their residence abroad. A sub-
sequent edict enacted that heresy should not be punishable
henceforth with any severer penalty than banishment; and
six months later (January, 1562) all penalties against Huguenots
were provisionally suspended, until the promulgation of the
final sentence of a General Council.
The States of Orleans legislated likewise in the right direc-
tion on the all-important subject of ecclesiastical elections. It
was decreed that, on the vacancy of an episcopal see, the bishops
of the province and the chapter of the Cathedral, in conjunc-
tion with twelve deputies of the nobility and twelve of the
commonalty of the diocese, should present the names of three
well-qualified candidates to the King, of whom he should select
one for the appointment.* That such a statute should not only
have passed the three Chambers, but should also have been
accepted by the Crown, is a fact well worthy of note, since it
amounted to nothing less than an abolition of the Concordat.
But the concession was merely nominal. The new regulation
was tacitly set aside, and the sovereign continued to bestow
episcopal sees at his pleasure as heretofore.
The Chancellor was earnestly bent upon carrying a further
instalment of his scheme of conciliation,-namely, the assemb-
ling of a National Council. What he desired under this name
was a conference between the leading divines of the two
communions, for the amicable discussion of the points in con-
troversy;-a step which, he trusted, might lead to some tem-
porary arrangement by way of compromise, and thus pave the
way for eventual reunion. There can be no doubt that he
regarded it also in another point of view—as an instrument
which might be useful in detaching the French clergy more and
more from the Court of Rome, and accustoming them to see
critical questions affecting domestic interests determined inde-
pendently of foreign intervention.
The news of these strange projects in France excited serious
disquietude at Rome. The reigning Pope, Pius IV., no sooner
discovered that Catherine and her advisers were in earnest in
preparing to hold a Gallican Council, than he resolved to
traverse it by recalling into action the dormant synod of Trent
* Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises, tom. xiv. p. 64.
138 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. II.
—a step which, indeed, he seems to have meditated from the
beginning of his Pontificate. That the Protestants, who were
every day increasing in numbers and power, would recognize
Such an assembly, and submit to its decrees, was no longer
within the bounds of probability; but it might be possible to
avert, by this expedient, the scandal to be apprehended from a
meeting in which the most venerable dogmas of the Catholic
faith were to be rudely questioned by irreverent schismatics,
intruded for that purpose into a position of equality with the
most dignified prelates of the Church. “If every prince,” cried
the indignant Pontiff, addressing the French ambassador,
“were to take upon himself to hold Councils in his own do-
minions, the Church would soon become a scene of universal
confusion.” He also complained bitterly that the French
government had not consulted him previously as to the pro-
jected synod, requesting his permission to hold it, instead of
convoking it first and acquainting him with their intentions
afterwards.” - -
The resumption of the Tridentine Council placed the pro-
moters of the Gallican scheme on the horns of an anxious
dilemma. If they persisted in their plan, they set themselves
in open opposition to the Holy See, and to the first principles of
Catholicism; if they abandoned it, they relinquished a measure
which they believed to be of the deepest national importance,
in favour of one from which they expected little or no practical
advantage.
A middle course was finally adopted. It was agreed that the
National Council should not be celebrated under that obnoxious
name; but the bishops and clergy were invited to confer with
certain chosen members of the Calvinist body, in order to
ventilate freely, and if possible to adjust, disputed questions;
without trenching, however, On the character and functions of
a synod representing the universal Church. The Cardinal of
Lorraine declared in favour of the project in this modified
shape; partly, it is said, from motives of Vanity, that he might
have an opportunity of exhibiting his powers in demolishing
the heretics, and partly because he hoped that by skilful
* Fra Paolo, Hist. du C. de Trente, Liv. v. § 53.
f Varillas, Hist, de Charles IX., tom. i. p. 97.
A.D. 1561. COLLOQUY OF POISSY. 139
management, the inconsistencies and divisions between the
different sects of Protestants, especially between the Luthe-
rans of Germany and the Calvinists of France, might be so
strongly brought out in the course of the debates, as to shake
the credit of the whole system of the Reformation in the public
mind. In the prospect, moreover, of an appeal to arms, which
manifestly was not far distant, it was an important point to
separate the Huguenots from their brethren of the Augsburg
Confession, and thus deprive them of any advantage which they
might have gained by coalition. With this object the Guises
entered into secret negociation with the Protestant Duke of
Wirtemburg; and the Cardinal is even said to have offered
to sign the Lutheran profession of faith, and to obtain its
recognition in France, provided the Duke and other princes of
the Empire would agree to support their pretensions and policy.”
The “Colloquy of Poissy" was appointed for the 19th of
August, 1561. Just before it assembled, Catherine de Medicis
addressed a remarkable letter to the Pope, in which she ex-
plained her motives, enlarged on the many notorious abuses
which infested the Church, and pointed out the concessions
which, in her judgment, ought to be made to the Reformers,
for the purpose of re-establishing, if it might be, unity and
peace. She stated that the numbers and importance of the
separatists were now so great, that it was hopeless to think of
coercing them by rigorous legislation or by force of arms. The
party was strong among the nobility and magistracy; it was
constantly on the increase, and was formidable throughout the
kingdom. Nevertheless it was consoling to reflect that the Hugue-
nots were not Anabaptists, or free-thinkers, or propagators
of monstrous and pestilent opinions. They held the Apostles'
Creed, and adhered to the first six General Councils. This
being so, it was felt by many Catholics that they ought not to
be violently expelled from the pale of the Church; that their
difference of Sentiment on certain topics might be tolerated
without danger; and that such a course might even tend to
facilitate a reconciliation between the Latin and the Oriental
communions. The Queen went on to specify the measures
* See Preuvés de la Satyre Menippée, tom. iii. pp. 6, 15, 26. Also Anquetil,
Esprit de la Ligue, tom. i. p. 113.
140 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. CHAP. II.
which she considered desirable towards regaining the seceders,
and confirming those who still remained in the fold. She
recommended frequent interviews between those of the two
parties who were most eminent for their learning and their
love of peace; diligence on the part of the clergy in exhorta-
tions to charity, brotherly-kindness, and concord; careful
abstinence from injurious language and disputatious habits.
She suggested, further, that the use of images, since it was
forbidden in Scripture, might be advantageously abolished; that
the ceremony of exorcism in baptism, and other like super-
stitions, might be omitted; that the Holy Eucharist ought to
be given to the laity under both kinds; that prayers and psalms
should be recited in public in the vulgar tongue; and that,
the Feast of Corpus Christi (then recently instituted) should
cease to be observed, inasmuch as it had caused widespread
Offence.*
Such language, from such a quarter, at such a moment,
alarmed and irritated the Holy Father. It sounded as if the
French Court had resolved to take the concerns of religion into
its own hands, without either seeking directions from the See of
S. Peter, or consulting the Supreme legislature of Christendom.
A special legate, Hippolito d’Este, Cardinal of Ferrara, was
despatched in all haste to France, with instructions to frustrate
the conference, if possible. But he arrived too late.
After much preliminary negociation, the Colloquy was
opened on the 9th of September, in the presence of the young
king, the Queen-Mother, the princes of the blood, the great
officers of the Crown, and a brilliant audience.f Cardinal
de Tournon, Archbishop of Lyons, presided; five other Cardinals
* Fra Paolo, Liv. v. § 72. Varillas, Mémoires de Condé. The official record
Hist, de Charles IX., tom. i. p. 103. of the proceedings may be seen in the
The letter is said to have been drawn first vol. of the Collection des Proces-
up by the Bishop of Valence, Jean de verbawa, des Assemblées générales du
Montluc, a prelate Well known to lean Clergé de France, which commences
towards the Reformed opinions. from this date. The Colloquy was
f The contemporary accounts of this preceded by a proclamation, or edict,
meeting vary considerably. That of giving permission to all the king's
Claude d’Espence—Acta Colloqui Pos- subjects, of whatever condition, to
siaci — is probably the most trust- attend at Poissy, with a promise of
worthy. We have, besides, the version impartial hearing for those who might
published by the Huguenots, “Ample wish to address the assembly, and a
discours des actes de Poissy,” which pledge of safety in going and returning.
Scems to have been followed by De Sec Mémoires de Comde, tom. i. p. 41.
Thou, and by the compiler of the
A.D. 1561. COLLOQUY OF POISSY. 141
attended, together with forty prelates, a numerous phalanx of
doctors of the Sorbonne, and many deputies from the chapters
and conventual bodies. The Reformers were represented by
twelve of their most eminent ministers, headed by Theodore
Beza, the favourite disciple and confidential friend of Calvin.
Peter Martyr, who was reckoned the ablest theologian of the
party, was likewise present.
The Chancellor de l'Hôpital commenced the proceedings” in
a speech which by no means pleased the Catholics, since he
drew a parallel between the advantages of a National and an
CEcumenical Council, to the disparagement of the latter. The
fathers summoned to Trent, he said, being for the most part
strangers to France, could not be intimately acquainted with
the evils which required redress; and, moreover, would be
obliged to defer to the personal will and pleasure of the Pope;
whereas an assembly of French divines was directly interested
by ties of natural relationship, by local experience, and by
patriotic motives, in healing the wounds under which the
country groaned. There was no reason, he observed, why there
should be any opposition or collision between the one Council
and the other; instances were on record of two Councils being
in session at the same time; and it had even happened that
mistakes committed by a General Council had been rectified
by one of more modest pretensions. Cardinal de Tournon
demanded that a copy of this discourse should be furnished to
him in writing; but an excuse was made for non-compliance.
It is supposed that he designed to call the Chancellor to account
for it at some future opportunity. i gº
Theodore Beza was then invited to speak. He entered into an
elaborate exposition of the doctrinal system of the Reformers,
as set forth in the “Institutions” of Calvin. His tone was
calm, conciliating, and impressive. In treating of the Eucharist,
he employed language which at first seemed almost tantamount
to the Catholic terminology on that vital point. But on
further explanation it appeared that the Presence which he
* Continuat, de Fleury, Liv. clvii. 4. where the Arians had for the moment
# This was an allusion to the Council triumphed.
of Paris in A.D. 360, which rejected the † Mémoires de Condé, tom. ii. p. 492.
heretical confession of faith propounded Warillas, Hist, de Charles IX. tom. i.
by the Council of Ariminum in 359, p. 124.
142 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. II.
recognized was subjective only; depending, not on the Super-
natural virtue of the Sacrament, but on the power of faith; to
be sought, not in any change of the substance of the elements,
but in the heart of the devout communicant. Beza repudiated
both Transubstantiation and Consubstantiation. “The glorified
Body of Christ,” he contended, “is in heaven, and cannot be
elsewhere.” He allowed that by the Sacrament we are really
made partakers of Christ; “but with respect to actual locality,”
continued Beza, forgetting for a moment his discretion, “ Christ
is as far distant from the consecrated bread and wine as the
highest heaven is remote from earth.” -
At this unfortunate Sally the Catholics could not restrain
their indignation. “He blasphemes l’ they exclaimed. Car-
dinal de Tournon rose hastily, and, in a voice trembling
with emotion, begged that Beza might not be allowed to pro-
ceed further, for fear of poisoning the tender mind of the
young monarch. He obtained leave, however, though with
difficulty, to bring his speech to a conclusion; and, after a few
more words of angry remonstrance from the Cardinal, the
assembly separated in a state of agitation.*
At the second meeting, Several days afterwards, the Cardinal .
of Lorraine replied to Beza in a discourse well worthy of his
high reputation both as an orator and a controversialist. He
confined himself to two points—the authority of the Church
and the Real Presence in the Eucharist. From the unvarying
testimony of tradition to the Catholic dogmas, he proved the
infallibility of the “Ecclesia docens” in her decisions founded
upon it. All doctrinal controversy, he argued, turns upon the
right interpretation of Holy Scripture. How then is the sense
of Scripture to be ascertained, unless there be an authoritative
tribunal to which appeal may be made continually; a living
voice to adjudicate between truth and error as each successive
emergency arises? What could ever be sufficient to justify
Christians in rejecting the guidance of such an infallible
teacher ? And then, dexterously resorting to the “argumentum
ad hominem,” he reminded the Huguenots that they had been
baptized into the communion of the Roman Church, had pro-
* De Thou, Hist, Univ. Liv. xxviii. La Place, Commentaire de l’Estat de
Religion, Liv. vi.
A.D. 1561. COLLOQUY OF POISSY. 143
fessed its creed, and obeyed its authority, until certain pro-
ceedings on the part of its rulers in recent times had chanced
to give them offence.
With respect to the Eucharist, the Cardinal exposed the
contradiction into which Beza had fallen, by asserting that we
are really partakers of the Body and Blood of Christ in that
Sacrament, while he maintained at the same time that Christ,
being locally in heaven, cannot be in any other place. It was
far more philosophical and more reasonable, he contended,
to believe with Catholics, that the Body of Christ, which is no
longer a natural but a spiritual and immortal body, subject to
conditions of existence of which we know absolutely nothing,
may be present in many places at One and the same time. The
doctrine of the Real Presence, as held in the Church of Rome,
he proceeded to establish by proofs drawn with great ability
from Holy Scripture and the principal Fathers.”
The sitting was now adjourned. Those which followed were
not held in the presence of the King and Court, but were com-
paratively private. Theodore Beza attempted to justify the
position of the separatists from the Church, by distinguishing
between the succession of persons and the succession of true
doctrine, and arguing that the former is of no avail except in
conjunction with the latter. Being thereupon asked who had
ordained him to the ministry, he replied that there is an extra-
ordinary vocation to that office, in addition to the ordinary;
just as there is a Church of the predestined and elect, besides
that outward communion which consists of all Christians indis-
criminately. Both general and particular Councils, he affirmed,
have repeatedly fallen into error; for an assembly of bishops
is not less fallible than any other body of men. Yet God will
always preserve in His Church a certain number of faithful
witnesses, either greater or smaller, who will hand down the
knowledge of saving truth.
Claude d’Espence and Claude de Saintes, two of the most
eminent controversial scholars of the time, refuted without
difficulty these paradoxes of the Calvinist divine, which, it must
* This speech is given at full length in the Collection des Procés-verbawa, des
Assemblées Générales du Clergé de France, tom, i., “Pièces justificatives,” No. 2,
144 * THE G ALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. II.
be remembered, were not then so trite and hackneyed as they
appear to readers of the nineteenth century.
The Cardinal of Lorraine, recurring to the crucial subject of
the Eucharist, now enquired whether Beza and his colleagues
were willing to subscribe the article of the Confession of Augs-
burg relating to that doctrine P Beza, in reply to this insidious
question (the purpose of which he penetrated), demanded
whether the Cardinal and the other prelates were themselves
prepared to adopt it? If they had authority to make the pro-
position in the name of the Catholics as a body, he hailed it as
a happy omen, since in that case the tenet of Transubstantia-
tion would necessarily be expunged from the Roman creed; but
if they would not accept the Lutheran article themselves, with
what consistency could they tender it as a test of orthodoxy to
others ? This keen rejoinder disconcerted and provoked the
Cardinal; and the rest of the debate seems to have been little
better than a scene of indecorous altercation.*
Lainez, the famous General of the Jesuits, who had come to
France in company with the Cardinal-legate of Ferrara, assailed
the Huguenots with vituperative epithets, and even rebuked
the Queen-Mother to her face for suffering the Conference to
take place. Beza retorted in a style of raillery still more
exasperating.
Though it was clear, after this, that the affair could not ter-
minate successfully, it was resolved to make a final effort of
approximation, and for this purpose, a select committee of ten
persons was named from the most moderate members of each
party. After some days of negociation, these divines drew up a
formulary upon the doctrine of the Eucharist, in the terms of
which it was hoped that all sincere friends of peace in the rival
communions might be induced to concur. Its language, of
course, was to Some extent ambiguous, in order that each party
might be at liberty to construe it in accordance with their own
prepossessions. The following was the draft agreed upon :-
“We confess that Jesus Christ, in His Holy Supper, presents,
gives, and exhibits to us the true substance of His Body and
Blood by the operation of the Holy Spirit; and that we receive
* Warillas, LIist. de Charles IX., tom. i. p. 161.
A.D. 1561. COLLOQUY OF POISSY. 145
and eat Sacramentally, spiritually, and by faith, that very Body
which died for us, that we may be bone of His bone and flesh of
His flesh. And inasmuch as faith, resting on the word of God,
makes present things which are promised, so that thereby we
receive actually the true and natural Body and Blood of our
Lord by the power of the Holy Ghost, in that sense we acknow-
ledge the real presence of Christ in the Holy Supper.””
With the help of this evasive phraseology an understanding
might possibly have been effected, provided both sides could
have agreed to accept the statement in a general sense, as an
article of peace, intentionally excluding technicalities, and not
to be too narrowly criticised. But its authors must have been
conscious that, if submitted by Catholic divines to the rigorous
test of scientific definition, its failure was inevitable.
The result showed that the whole enterprise was simply hope-
less. The doctors of the Sorbonne, being appealed to, rejected
the formulary as “captious, insufficient, and heretical.” Upon
this the prelates put forth a counter statement, asserting the
Real Presence by transubstantiation of the elements, according to
the authorized tradition of the Church. This they forwarded
to the queen, with a request that Beza and his associates might
be ordered to signify their acceptance of it without further
demur, under pain of being proscribed as heretics and banished
from the kingdom. -
This peremptory demand was equivalent to a rupture of the
negociation; and the Conference of Poissy thus terminated
without satisfactory result. -
It was a woeful disappointment to De l'Hôpital and his friends.
They now saw the utter futility of attempting to accommodate
matters by means of a National Council; nor was the augury
at all more promising with regard to the action of the General
Council about to reassemble at Trent, in which lay the sole
remaining chance of a peaceful solution. The irreconcilable
discrepancies between the two great Protestant denominations
had been exposed with damaging ability; and the disputants,
instead of settling the conditions of reunion, separated with
feelings of increased estrangement.
Other circumstances concurred to augment the mortification
* Th, Beza, Hist, des Egl. Ref. i. 608, Contin. de Fleury, Liv. clvii. 24.
WOI, I, - L
146 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
of those who had been most Sanguine in promoting the late
negociations. The King of Navarre, yielding to the fascinating
rhetoric of the Cardinal of Lorraine, and to the political bribes
of Philip of Spain, abandoned the Huguenots and returned to
the bosom of the Church of Rome. It was at this juncture,
too, that the Jesuits first obtained a legal footing in France.
Their General, Lainez, procured an arrêt from the Parliament,
referring the question of their admission to the prelates as-
sembled at Poissy.” That body decided in their favour, though
with certain qualifications; whereupon the courts of law regis-
tered their letters of reception, and they were put into posses-
sion of a college at Paris which had been bequeathed to them
by Guillaume Duprat, Bishop of Clermont; an institution
which soon acquired celebrity under the name of the Collège
de Clermont.f
The state of things now grew rapidly worse in France. The
Queen-Mother, under the guidance of De l'Hôpital, persevered
for some time longer in her efforts to soothe and conciliate the
sectaries; and the edict of Saint Germain, published in January,
1562, was a further step than any which had yet been taken
towards establishing complete liberty of conscience. But it was
instantly met by a vehement ultra-Catholic reaction. The “Tiers-
parti” lost the control of affairs, which was seized by a menacing
coalition headed by the Constable Montmorency, the Duke of
Guise, and Marshal de St. André. Their alliance became known
by the ill-omened title of the “Triumvirate.” Within three
months afterwards, the long-suppressed violence of parties burst
forth in the accidental rencontre called the “Massacre of Wassy,”
and the flames of civil strife were forthwith kindled throughout
the land.
Upon the close of the proceedings at Poissy, the Gallican pre-
lates received the king's commands to prepare to set out for
Trent. The Council had been opened there pro formá several
months previously, but had been unable to commence opera-
tions, on account of its manifest inadequacy, in point of
numbers and importance, to represent the Catholic world. The
attendance of bishops gradually increased, and the first session
* Contin, de Fleury, Liv, clvii. 32. f Dulaure, Hist, de Paris, tom. iv. p. 219.
- f Mémoires de Condé, tom. iii. p. 8, .
{*-
A.D. 1562. COUNCIL OF TRENT. & 147
under Pius IV. (counted as the seventeenth) was held on the
18th of January, 1562.
There were those in France who still cherished a vague hope
that the collective wisdom of the Fathers of the Church might
devise the means of a safe reformation, and that a happy re-
union might thus succeed to the calamities of schism. But
such visions were altogether baseless. No mere concessions on
matters of ceremonial and outward discipline, such as the grant
of Communion in both kinds to the laity, or the celebration of
Divine service in the vulgar tongue, would have sufficed at this
moment to win back the wanderers to the fold, even had the
Council been willing to consent to them. Every day's experi-
ence proved more plainly that the gulf which separated the two
systems was too broad and deep to be thus easily bridged over;
and that the innovations of Protestantism amounted in sober
truth, as well as in popular parlance, to a “new religion.”
It was felt, by the deepest thinkers on both sides, that the
controversy had passed beyond the region of calm discussion
and amicable adjustment. All that remained to be done at
Trent, as things then stood, was to declare the mind of the
Church, definitely and positively, upon the points at issue,
and so to provide a standard of belief to which Catholics might
appeal thenceforward as a final and Supreme authority.
The Court of France, nevertheless, professed to be full of
hope for the future if the Tridentine fathers could be induced
to give way on certain minor questions of ecclesiastical polity
and ritual order; and these, accordingly, were embodied in the
instructions given to the ambassadors of Charles IX.-Saint
Gelais de Lansac, Arnaud Du Ferrier, and Dufaur de Pibrac—
all magistrates of high position, and strongly attached to the
party headed by De l'Hôpital.
They were charged to demand, in the first place, that the Coun-
cil should be explicitly declared to be a new assembly, and not a
mere continuation of the old. Special stress was laid upon this
distinction, for the sake of avoiding offence to the Protestants;
who, having denied the legitimacy of the earlier proceedings
under Popes Paul and Julius, could hardly be expected to
submit to the same tribunal which they had formerly rejected.
The reader will remember, moreover, that Henry II. had entered
a protest, in his own name and that of the Gallican Church,
X- L 2
148 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
against all synodal acts at Trent posterior to the XIIth session,
in September, 1551. As a second point, they were to urge that
the deliberations of the Council must be free ; and that no
reservation should be made, as was the case on former Occasions,
of “the good pleasure of the Pope and his legates.” The
decisions at which the fathers might arrive were not to be
submitted to the judgment of the Pope; on the contrary, it
was to be clearly understood that his Holiness had no power to
alter or dispense with them in the very least particular, and that
he himself was bound to obey them. Further, inasmuch as the
existing troubles had arisen from the flagrant abuses prevalent
among the clergy, and from the general decay of discipline, the
ambassadors were to recommend the Council to apply itself
forthwith to the thorough reformation of the Church, as well in
its head as in its members, conformably with the well-known
decrees of the Council of Constance. With a view to such
reformation, the Pope should be requested not to interfere,
directly or indirectly, in the appointment of bishops, abbots, or
parochial clergy; the disposal of benefices should be left to the
ordinary collators. The Pope ought plainly to renounce for
the future the prerogative of dispensing with the decrees of
Councils. Annates, and all other taxes payable by ecclesiastics
to the Court of Rome, should be abolished; and official docu-
ments issuing from the Roman chancery ought to be furnished
without charge. Archbishops and bishops ought to be bound to
residence within their dioceses, without exemption. None should
be advanced to the episcopate unless duly qualified as to age
and other canonical requirements. Newly-appointed prelates
should be admitted and consecrated according to the rules laid
down by the Councils. Lastly, the royal envoys were enjoined
to keep vigilant watch over the privileges and liberties of the
Gallican Church; and in the event of any attack being made
upon them, they were to protest against it forthwith, and send
information to the king.”
It was on the 26th of May, 1562, that the representatives of
his most Christian Majesty made their first public appearance at
Trent, Pibrac addressed the Council on this occasion in a speech
of considerable ingenuity, though of questionable taste. He
* Contin, de Fleury, Liv, clviii. 60.
A.D. 1562. COUNCIL OF TRENT. - 149
enlarged on the manifold snares and artifices by which the great
Tempter would seek to blind the understanding and corrupt the
hearts of those then assembled in consultation on the affairs
of the Church. Self-interest, servility, sloth, worldly-mindedness,
duplicity—such, according to this unceremonious monitor, were
the special dangers which beset them. He warned them not to
mar the good work before them by yielding to these weaknesses.
Reform was indispensable; and that reform, he gave them to
understand, must commence with themselves. Other Councils,
he went on to remark, had been held both in Italy and Germany,
which, unhappily, had proved useless to the Church; and perhaps
for this reason among others, that they had not enjoyed the
necessary freedom of action. To prevent this in the present
instance, the fathers should remember that they were individu-
ally responsible as judges of all the questions which might be
brought before them; that they were bound to give their opinion
according to the dictates of conscience, without listening to pre-
judice or passion ; and that they must not invoke the inspira-
tion of the Holy Ghost from any other quarter than Heaven.
This last hint was a sufficiently plain allusion to the pressure
which was said to be exercised upon the Council by the Pope.
The same insinuation was afterwards repeated in coarser
language by De Lansac, who, in a letter to his colleague at
Rome, begged that no ground might be given for a rumour
which he had heard, that the Holy Spirit was despatched from
Rome to Trent in the courier's portmanteau.” After some
further admonitions in the same tone of covert raillery, Pibrac
concluded by urging the legates to declare officially that the
present was no mere continuation of the Council begun under
Paul III., and carried on by Julius III. in the midst of tumult
and disorder—but an entirely new assembly, convoked freely,
legitimately, and according to ancient usage, with the consent
of the princes of Christendom ; an assembly which would
doubtless be attended by deputies from the Reformed States of
Germany, qualified by their learning and talent to represent
the views and interests of those who were striving for the puri-
fication of the Church."
* See his letter to M. de Lisle, May 29, 1562; in Le Plat, tom. v. p. 169.
# Contin. de Fleury, Liv. clix. 16.
150 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH, CHAP. II.
The Spaniards, and others who had been engaged in the
earlier proceedings of the Council, were much offended by this
harangue. The legates replied to it with dignity and modera-
tion; assuring the ambassadors that the Council was by no
means disposed to submit to dictation, in whatever shape it
might be attempted; that it was fully resolved to be guided by
no principles save those of honour and duty, as the result would
prove in due time.* They had no authority, they said, to make
any alteration in the “indiction” of the Council; their office
was to preside in it, according to the terms of the Pope's bull,
confirmed by the assent of the fathers. After this the question
about the “continuation” of the Council was dropped. Indeed
it had been mooted without reason, inasmuch as the bull of
indiction was so worded as to admit the view for which the
French contended, though without positively excluding the con-
trary construction.f
The Gallican episcopate, meanwhile, was still absent from
Trent, or slenderly represented there by the Bishop of Paris,
Eustache du Bellai, and two or three of his colleagues. The
religious commotions which distracted France were alleged as
the cause of their non-arrival; but, considering that the Council
had been convened for the very purpose of appeasing these com-
motions, and that the condition of France was the principal
subject of solicitude and alarm in the ecclesiastical world, there
was no great force in this excuse. The real reasons which
withheld the French from proceeding to Trent appear to have
been these :—first, they shrank from the measures of practical
reform affecting their own order, which were known to be in
contemplation, and of the necessity of which they were fully
conscious; and next, they found it difficult to decide what line
of action to adopt amid the mazy intrigues and conflicting
interests which abounded in the Council. They were far from
being agreed among themselves as to some of the most important
questions in debate, particularly as to the policy of making con-
* “Apertè praedicit, Secujusvis volun-
paroles ambigues et equivoques, qui
tatem, potentiam, aut Cupiditatem,
Semblent suffire pour la presente con-
sacrosanctæ Synodi dignitati et auctori-
tati perpetuo posthabituram.”—Le Plat,
tom. v. p. 183. Labbe, Concil, tom.
xiv. p. 1180. ... .
f “Ils se sont accordes , , , de
corde, en ces termes: celebratio Con-
cilii Sublatà quâcunque suspensione.”
—M. de Lisle au Roy de France, Jan.
25, 1562-3. Le Plat, tom. v. p. 16.
A.D. 1562. COUNCIL OF TRENT. 151
cessions to the Huguenots. Even the sentiments of the Cardinal
of Lorraine were on many points ambiguous, and the greatest
uncertainty prevailed as to the part which he might actually
play in the deliberations of the assembly.
It were idle to indulge in speculation as to the amount of
influence for good which the French prelates might have exer-
cised, had they shown more zeal in repairing to the seat of the
Council, strong in numerical force, and unanimous as to
the objects which they desired to gain. It is well to mention,
however, that in all probability they might at least have suc-
ceeded in carrying a decree for the restoration of the Eucharistic
Cup to the laity. In the course of the discussions on that
subject it was abundantly proved that such a change of discip-
line would be acceptable to large numbers of Catholics, besides
being urgently demanded on behalf of the Protestants; and
there is reason to believe that the Pope himself was not person-
ally opposed to it.” But, in the absence of those who might
have turned the scale decisively in favour of concession, the
Council pronounced that communion “sub utrāque” is not of
Divine obligation;f and left it to the Pope to judge of the par-
ticular cases and circumstances in which it might be expedient
to authorize it. The French ambassadors, however, entered a
special plea for the preservation of one of the ancient privileges
of the kings of France, who were accustomed, from time im-
memorial, to communicate in both kinds on the day of their
coronation.
The French prelates, headed by the Cardinal of Lorraine, at
length reached Trent on the 13th of November, 1562. They
were fifteen in number, and were accompanied by three abbots
and eighteen divines of the Sorbonne. Other prelates arrived
from France soon afterwards; and with these reinforcements
there were two hundred and eighteen bishops assembled in
Council. The Gallicans, however, were still a mere fraction
as compared with the Italians, the greater part of whom were
pensioners of the Pope, and, as such, his submissive creatures.
The movements of the Cardinal of Lorraine were jealously
watched by the Court of Rome, since he was reported to
* Fra Paolo, Liv. vi. § 58. † Concil. Trident, sess. xxii. Fra
f Sess, xxi. cap. i. Labbe, Concil., Paolo, Liv. vi. § 56. Contin, de Fleury,
tom. xiv. p. 846. Liv. clx, 53.
152 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
entertain ideas and projects inimical to the Papal interests.
He had been heard to boast that he would place himself at
the head, not only of the French, but also of the Spanish
and German prelates in the Council.” It was apprehended
that, if he should thus assume the position of a party leader,
he might be tempted to foment the discussion of unpalatable
questions. He might think proper to ventilate the doctrine
which was known to be so popular among his countrymen
as to the Supreme authority of General Councils; he might
insist on sweeping measures of administrative reform, and
the extirpation of lucrative abuses; he might agitate vexa-
tiously for changes in the disciplinary system of the Church,
for the sake of humouring the Calvinists. Every effort was,
in consequence, made at Rome to counteract his influence.
The Cardinal-legate of Ferrara was secretly instructed to
dissuade him from attending the Council; while the legates
at Trent were ordered to hasten matters so as to bring it
to a close, if possible, before the dreaded visitor could make
his appearance on the scene. As soon as his arrival was
announced, the Pope sent a confidential emissary to Trent,
Ostensibly to compliment him by a mark of special favour,
but in reality to act as a spy on his proceedings.f
It turned out, however, that there was no reason for such
excessive mistrust. The Cardinal, undoubtedly, was a stanch
Gallican on the point of the superiority of a General Council
over the Pope. He was charged, moreover, by his govern-
ment, to urge upon the fathers of Trent certain indispensable
articles of reformation, in the necessity of which he himself
concurred. In principle, therefore, and as the leading repre-
sentative of the Church of France, he could not do otherwise
than uphold the national maxims; but it will appear in the
* Seethe “Memoire secret” of Prosper
de Ste. Croix (Santa Croce), Nuncio at
Paris, addressed to Cardinal Borromeo,
Aug. 5, 1562, (Archives Curieuses de
l'Histoire de France, tom. vi. p. 109.)
* Fra Paolo, Liv. vii. § 31, Contin.
de Fleury, Liv, clxi, 19, 20.
1 See his letter to his agent at
Rome, Jan. 14, 1563, in Le Plat's
Collection, tom. v. p. 653. “Je ne
puis nier que je suis François, hourri
en l’Université de Paris, enlaquelle on
tient l'autorité du Concile pardessus le
Pape, et Sont censurés comme heré-
tiques ceux qui tiennent le contraire.
En Trance on tient le Concile de Con-
stance pour général en toutes ses
parties; l’on suit celui de Basle, et
tient celui de Florence pour non légi-
time ni général; et l’on fera plutót
mourir les François que d'aller au con-
traire. . . . Les priviléges du royaume
Sont tous fondés et appuyés sur cette
Verité.” -
A.D. 1562. COUNCIL OF TRENT. 153
sequel that, under the pressure of circumstances, he was prac-
tically a timeserver, and governed by the dictates of his own
ambition. He forbore, when once convinced of the expediency
of that course, to demand the dogmatic assertion of truths
which might be detrimental to the Pope's prerogative; and on
several critical occasions he lent effective aid, both by his vote
and influence, to the Ultramontane section of the Council.
At the moment of his arrival the assembly was in a state
of violent excitement on a question which could not well be
avoided, though its discussion was by no means likely to turn
to the advantage of the Church—namely the institution and
jurisdiction of the episcopate. That the Christian hierarchy is
of Divine origin was, of course, indisputable among Catholics;
nevertheless the subject was not without its controversial diffi-
culties. One party (the Ultramontane) held that the powers of
diocesan bishops are derived mediately from the Sovereign
Pontiff, who assigns to each a portion of that universal pastoral
responsibility which is centralized in his person.” Others
maintained, on the contrary, that all bishops are by their
office equal; that their authority is immediately “ of Divine
right;" and that their character is complete without any form
of institution by the Pope. This latter doctrine—based on the
strongest evidence of primitive antiquity—was manfully enun-
ciated, in the Congregation of the 1st of December, by Avos-
mediano Bishop of Cadiz ; and the plain-spoken freedom
of this prelate led to a scene of unprecedented agitation in
the Council. The Ultramontanes shouted “Anathema heresy
away with him l’ and it was with no small difficulty that
the legates restored order. The Cardinal of Lorraine then
rose, and animadverted with severity on this indecent outburst.
He declared that the opinion of the Spanish prelate was any-
thing but heretical; and added that, if it had been one of the
French bishops who had met with such insolent treatment, he
(the Cardinal) would have felt it his duty to protest against the
acts of the Council, and to return forthwith to France.f
* “Assumptos a Romano Pontifice
in partem sollicitudinis.” The phrase
is taken from a well-known passage
in one of St. Leo's Epistles. “Vices
nostras ita tuæ credidimus Caritati, ut
in partem sis vocatus Sollicitudinis, non
in pleuitudinen potestatis.” S. Leon.
Ep. xiv. (al. xii.) ad Anastas. Thessalon.
Cf. Grat. Decret. Caus. iii. Q. 6, c. 8.
The crux of the dispute was whether
bishops derive from the Pope the
power of Order, or only that of juris-
diction. -
f Contin. de Fleury, Liv, clxi. 43, 44.
154 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
Addressing himself to the main question, he proceeded to
discourse for two hours in a style which, though it excited
universal admiration, Savoured strongly of a politic compromise
between conviction and expediency. Rejecting alike the extra-
vagant Ultramontanist theory propounded by the Jesuit Lainez,
and the view which attributes to the Pope no more than a
precedency of rank among his equals in office, the astute French-
man steered a middle course, which conducted him to a safe, if
not a strictly logical, conclusion. He acknowledged that the
Episcopal Commission proceeds immediately from Christ; but
argued that its practical exercise must depend on the direction
of the prince of bishops, the successor of Peter. Those were no
times, he observed, for venturing upon any step which might
tend to abridge the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff. That `
authority was a principle absolutely necessary to the preserva-
tion of the unity of the Church; and for his part, nothing should
ever induce him to consent to any decision which might appear
to derogate from it. He, therefore, exhorted the fathers to
omit the phrase “de jure divino” from the canon under dis-
cussion (the 7th canon on the Sacrament of Order), and to
content themselves with stating in general terms that the Epis-
copate was instituted in the Church by Jesus Christ himself.”
The rest of the French prelates, however, were not deterred
by the influence of their superior from delivering their senti-
ments conscientiously and freely. Some few felt it necessary
to endorse the views of the great Cardinal; but the majority
declared that the powers of the episcopate are inherently
Divine, and independent of the Sovereign Pontiff. The supe-
riority of the Pope over bishops, they maintained, is not a
superiority of Order, but of rank or degree. The Pope, equally
with all other prelates, is subject to the legislative control of
the Church ; he is equally bound by the canons. Those who
most distinguished themselves by thus defending the ancient
doctrine of the Church of France were Claude d’Angennes,
Bishop of Le Mans, Eustache du Bellai, Bishop of Paris, and
François de Beaucaire, Bishop of Metz, f who in former days
had been tutor to the Cardinal of Lorraine. -
* Paleotti Acta Concil. Trident, p. + Beaucaire (or Belcarius) was
348 (Edit. Mendham, 1842). Fra | author of the Rerum Gallicarum Com-
Paolo, Liv. vii. § 38. Pallavicino, mentaria, a work of considerable value
Liv. xix, clap. 4. for the history of these times.
A.D. 1562. COUNCIL OF TRENT. 155
The war of opinion on this much-vexed question—a question
which involved, in its manifold ramifications, all the principles
at issue between the constitutional and the absolutist parties in
the Church—raged fiercely in the Council for many months,
and at one time threatened to terminate in its dissolution.*
The Cardinal of Lorraine preserved throughout the position of
a mediator. Theologically, he agreed with his Gallican
brethren; but he deprecated any conciliar definition of tenets
known to be offensive to the Holy See; and lamented, moreover,
that theoretical disputes of this kind should be allowed to obstruct
the all-important work of internal reform to which the assembly
was pledged. Three times did the Cardinal, at the invitation of
the legates, remodel the controverted canon; they were still
dissatisfied, and at length determined to refer the difficulty to
the Pope. This led to further negociations and further em-
barrassment. His Holiness proposed various amendments in
the draft submitted to him, and subjoined to it an additional
canon, in which the Pope was declared to have the power of
“feeding, ruling, and governing the Universal Church.” f .
It seems probable that, had a direct vote been taken, the
Ultramontanes would have been in a majority. But the legates,
knowing the strength of the opposition, wisely resolved to avoid
the unseemly spectacle of a division upon a matter of such grave
import; and in the end it was arranged that all mention of
Pontifical supremacy should be omitted from the canon, and
that the hierarchy of the Church, in its threefold order of
bishops, priests, and deacons, should be defined to have its
origin “ex ordinatione Diviná.”f That the Court of Rome on
the one hand, and the bishops of France on the other, were
brought to acquiesce in this mode of winding up the dispute,
was due chiefly to the judicious counsels, earnest entreaties, and
masterly tactics, of the Cardinal of Lorraine.
The result was in reality a triumph for the Gallican tradition,
which, in the absence of any authoritative decision of the Church
to the contrary, remains a permissible and legitimate opinion,
* Fra Paolo, Liv. vii. § 53. Contin. otti Act. Concil. Trident, p. 367. This
de Fleury, Liv. clx. 93. phrase is a quotation from the famous
f “Plenam potestatem pascendi, re- decree of the Council of Florence.
gendi, et gubernandi universalem Ec- † Concil, Trident. Sess, xxiii. cap. 4,
clesiam a Dnº. No. Jesu Christo in Canon wi.
B°, Petro eisdem traditam,” Cf. Pale-
156 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. II.
however strongly the tide of feeling among Catholics of a
certain school may have run counter to it in more recent
times.” So far as the Council of Trent is concerned, it is open
to the faithful to regard the Episcopate as holding its func-
tions immediately from God, without any secondary agency on
the part of the Roman Pontiff; though there is nothing in the
decree to make the Ultramontane theory untenable.
The Cardinal took a similar course upon the thorny question
of clerical residence, which was also debated with much warmth
and at tedious length. He maintained, in theory, that residence
is a matter of Divine obligation; but he subjoined so many
exceptions and modifications, that it was not easy to discover
whether his real opinion was favourable or the reverse to the
proposed decree on the subject. In this, as in other instances,
the controversy turned, not so much on the doctrine, as on the
consequences of the doctrine. If it were defined that residence
is necessary by Divine command, it followed that the Pope had
no authority to dispense with it; and one entire and most
important branch of the Pontifical prerogative would thus be
swept away. This sufficiently accounts for the earnestness
with which the decree was advocated by the sincere friends of
reformation, and for the pertinacity of the Ultramontanes in
opposing it. The Cardinal of Lorraine desired to stand well
with both parties;–to satisfy the demands of his temporal
sovereign, but at the same time to avoid giving offence in the
quarter from which he derived his ecclesiastical rank; and
the natural result was, that his conduct was not heartily
approved by either. The French bishops pronounced almost
unanimously for the definition of residence as obligatory by
the law of God. Eventually the difficulty was surmounted,
like many others, by a compromise. Residence was strictly
enjoined upon the clergy of all ranks, including cardinals—
but without any express mention of the jus divinum; and
the Pope was declared to be the proper judge of the causes
* Cf. Bossuet, Defens. Declarat., | Bishop of Lavaur, “O utinam ad
Praev. Dissert., § Xiv. hujus galli cantum Petrus resipisceret
f The speech of one of them— et fleret amarè l’” This anecdote is
Nicolas Psaume of Verdun—drew from given by Génébrard in his funeral
an Italian prelate the feeble witticism, oration for the Bishop of Lavaur in
“Gallus nimium cantat.” “O uti- || April, 1577. See Le Plat, tom. vii. p.
nam,” retorted the learned Daněs, 224. Paleotto, p. 573.
A.D. 1563. (OUNCIL OF TRENT. 157
which, under particular circumstances, might lawfully dispense
with it. *
On the 2nd of January, 1563, the French envoys transmitted
to the legates their “Articles of Reformation"—thirty-four in
number—with a request that they might be immediately laid
before the Council. In addition to the demands already spe-
cified, they contained others bearing on the residence of the
clergy, the qualifications of candidates for orders, the efficient
exercise of the jurisdiction of bishops, the regular celebration of
provincial Councils;–in short, the series of measures recom-
mended would have ensured a complete revival of Church dis-
cipline throughout France. But when the legates inquired of
the Cardinal of Lorraine whether he himself approved of all
these articles, he replied that there were some of them to which
he strongly objected, and that he had reason to believe that this
feeling was shared by many of his colleagues. Indeed, it was
no secret that the prelates of France were at heart opposed to a
reform which would have fallen chiefly upon abuses and cor-
ruptions notoriously practised by themselves.
The Pope, to whom the French requisitions were forthwith
despatched by a special messenger, was at first much irritated,
but was soon reassured by a private communication from the
Cardinal of Lorraine, who intimated that his Government would
be satisfied with much less in the way of concession than the
whole of what was formally demanded; and that if his Holiness
should think fit to grant the communion of the Cup to the laity,
the marriage of priests, and the use of the vulgar tongue in
Divine service, he would find no difficulty in bringing the
Council to a close with honour to himself and contentment to
all parties.| Upon this a temporising reply was forwarded from
Rome to France. The Pope expressed his approbation of many
of the articles, but pointed out that others were opposed to the
authority and interest of the Crown itself, inasmuch as they
* Concil. Trident., Sess. xxiii, cap. 1,
“De Reformatione.”
+ Paleotti, Act. Concil. Trident., p.
400. Contin, de Fleury, Liv. clxiii,
4, 5.
'i Nevertheless it appears that the
Cardinal had expressly approved these
articles when they were discussed and
arranged in the Council of State at
|Paris.
§ See the Mémoire Secret of the
Nuncio Santa Croce to Cardinal Borro-
meo, under date of March 29, 1563.
(Archives Curieuses de l’Histoire de
France, tom. vi.)
| Contin, de Fleury, Liv, clxiii. 30.
158 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
would curtail the royal prerogative of patronage, and tend to
make the bishops too powerful and independent. Commending
these objections to the king's consideration, he requested him to
transmit fresh instructions to his ambassadors at Trent. Time
was thus gained, and unwelcome demands eluded; but when
the French renewed their importunities, Pius flatly refused to
permit the legates to propose their articles to the Council. He
seems to have done this, not so much because he disapproved of
the articles themselves, as from uneasiness as to the possible
consequences of yielding to external pressure at such a mo-
mentous crisis in the fortunes of the Church. Even subordinate
concessions, he argued, if made in the face of danger, and for
the avowed purpose of satisfying heretics, would be fatal to the
principle of Pontifical authority. When these first steps had
been gained, new and more serious aggressions would inevitably
follow in their train; and, while difficulties increased, the means
of resistance would diminish in proportion. Moreover, there
was not the smallest probability that the Italian members of
the Council would ever consent to innovations of this kind in
the existing system of administration. The Pope, therefore,
now made it his chief object to terminate the Council with as
little delay as possible; and the Cardinal of Lorraine, who had
lately adopted views of the same kind from motives of personal
interest, afforded important assistance to his Holiness in effecting
this result.
The course of events in France, since the outbreak of the
civil war, had been such as to encourage the Government to
hope that the Huguenots would be subdued with little difficulty,
and that, ere long, the royal authority might be completely
re-established. The battle of Dreux, fought on the 9th of
December, 1562, was favourable to the Catholic cause. Cathe-
rine was thus enabled to negociate on advantageous terms with
the Protestant leaders, and the “pacification of Amboise” was
concluded in March, 1563. It had a curious influence on the
history of the Council of Trent. No sooner had the aspect of
affairs brightened at home, than Catherine and her ministers
began to look with much less interest on the proceedings, of
that distant assembly, from which they no longer expected any
efficient support. They now attached less importance to the
propositions of reform which at first had been so vigorously
N
A.D. 1563. COUNCIL OF TRENT. . 159
insisted on ; and, finding that the fathers were not likely to
accept a line of policy dictated by the necessities of France,
they instructed the Cardinal of Lorraine to turn his attentions
henceforth to the means of satisfying the Pope, and to co-operate
with the legates in expediting the business of the Council, so
that it might be dismissed without delay.
The Cardinal’s private feelings ran in the same direction. He
had lately sustained a cruel loss in the death of his elder
brother, the duke, who was assassinated by a fanatical Huguenot
at the siege of Orleans. This was a heavy blow to the ascendency
of his family in France. He saw that, if it was still to be main-
tained, the best way to promote it was to draw as closely as
possible the bonds of sympathy between himself, the Pope,
the King of Spain, and other powers, who were the bulwarks
of Catholicism. Under such circumstances a cordial under-
standing was speedily arrived at between Pius IV. and his
Eminence of Lorraine. The latter proceeded to Rome on the
invitation of the holy Father, and was received with unpre-
cedented honour; he was lodged in the Vatican, and the Pope
went publicly to visit him. In the confidential interviews which
followed, Pius ascertained that the prelate, whom he had once
imagined to be a dangerous opponent, might be easily con-
verted into a firm and zealous ally. A treaty to that effect was
Soon negociated; and although it is not likely that its details
can have been so fully divulged as Father Paul would lead us to
believe, there is no doubt that they were sufficiently gratifying
to the ambition and self-love of the Cardinal. The Pope hastened
to announce to the legates at Trent that his guest had gained
his entire confidence. Henceforward they were to treat him
as a colleague in authority, and to do nothing without his
knowledge and approval.”
To return to the Council. The legates, with whom lay the
sole prerogative of initiating measures for consideration, at
length brought forward a scheme of reform, embracing thirty-
eight articles. Its most remarkable chapter related to what
was called “the reformation of secular princes;”—a topic of
extreme delicacy, which had been frequently alluded to as
* Pallavicino, Liv. xxi, chap. 2. Contin, de Fleury, Liv. clxvi. 58,
160 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. II.
requiring discussion, and which was proposed at this moment by
way of attempting to counterbalance and neutralize the claims
advanced by the representatives of France. This famous
chapter consisted of various provisions for correcting and re-
straining the jurisdiction of the Crown in respect of the Church
and its ministers. The preamble stated that the holy Synod
had thought fit to renew certain ancient enactments in favour
of ecclesiastical immunity, hoping that lay sovereigns would
regard them with respect, and cause them to be punctually
observed, considering the submission which they themselves
owed to the Pope and to the Church. The chief stipulations
were as follows:—That ecclesiastics should not be amenable to
secular tribunals for any cause, or under any pretext whatsoever.
That the Crown should cease to interfere with the due exercise
of the jurisdiction of the Church in matters spiritual; whether
in causes of matrimony, heresy, and patronage, or in the tem-
poral government of churches, and the administration of Church
property. That the practice of “appels comme d’abus” should
be abolished; and that any one resorting to the civil courts in
the cases specified should be excommunicated, and incur the
forfeiture of their rights. That the temporal judge should not
be authorized to inhibit the spiritual judge from passing sen-
tence of excommunication without his permission, nor to Order
him to revoke or suspend any such sentence already pro-
nounced. That no prince or lay magistrate should make promise
of the presentation to any benefice within their territories, nor
procure any such preferment either from bishops or conventual
chapters; any such presentation to be ipso facto null and void.
That they should not lay hands on the revenues of vacant
benefices, either in virtue of patronage or under pretext of
appointing stewards or substitutes with a view to prevent dis-
putes. That ecclesiastics should not be subject to the payment
of taxes, or other subsidies under the name of gifts or loans,
except in countries where, by ancient usage, the clergy sit in
the provincial legislature for the purpose of taxing the laity
equally with their own order in case of war, or other urgent
necessity. And lastly, that all ecclesiastical sentences, cita-
tions, and decrees, particularly those emanating from the
Court of Rome, should be at once published and executed,
A.D. 1563. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. I61
without the formality of seeking consent or licence from the
civil power.”
These were extravagant pretensions; and it is probable that
their supporters were not serious, or at all events not hopeful
of success, in attempting to force them on the acceptance of the
Council. The object of the move was to create a diversion ;
and to intimate to those whom it might concern, that reforma-
tion is a question which has two sides—the reformation of the
clergy, however confessedly important, being only one of them.
The proceeding was keenly resented by the Court of France;
the young king denounced it to his ambassadors as an attempt
to “pare the nails of sovereigns, while it lengthened those of
the priests.” He ordered them to protest against it with the
utmost vigour, and to retire from the Council if it were not with-
drawn. Upon this, Du Ferrier put forth all his energies in a
spirited effort of remonstrance. He recounted the exertions
made by the kings of France for ages past to obtain a real re-
form of the Church and its ministers, and showed how that
work had hitherto been systematically eluded. His master was
amazed, he said, that the fathers should suggest measures which
manifestly tended to subvert the ancient liberties of the Gallican
Church,i and to injure the authority of the Most Christian kings,
who had made laws for the government of ecclesiastics within
their own dominions, which laws had been approved by successive
popes, and were in accordance with the decrees of CEcumenical
Councils. No such mighty progress had as yet been made at
Trent in the work of reforming the Church, that the Council
should overstep its proper province, and undertake the cor-
rection of secular magistrates. He went on to criticize in detail
the acts and regulations of the Council, contrasting them sarcas-
tically with the legislation of primitive ages, the restoration of
which, he contended, was the only true remedy for existing
evils, persistently demanded both by Church and State in
France. In fine, Du Ferrier exhorted the assembled fathers, if
Fra Paolo, Liv. viii. § 53. Contin. de Hincmar and St. Bernard have thought
Fleury, Liv. clxvi. 45. it Worth their while to contend for the
f Contin. de Fleury, Liv. clxvi. 38. liberty of the Church, if they had
# This shows how completely the understood it in the Sense put upon it
true idea of “Gallican liberty” had by the ambassador of Charles IX.”
been perverted and falsified by the
VOL. I. M
* Raymald. Ammal., tom. xv. p. 442. arts of modern politicians. Would
162 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
they desired to see a reform among princes, to begin by imitat-
ing in their own persons those great prelates of old, who, by
their sanctity and self-devotion, had acquired such commanding
influence over the temporal magnates of their day. The surest
way to reproduce a line of sovereigns like Theodosius, Arcadius,
Valentinian, and Gratian, would be to fill the high places of the
Church with a line of bishops rivalling Ambrose and Augustine,
Athanasius and Chrysostom.
This scene took place during the absence of the Cardinal of
Lorraine on his visit to Rome. The Pope complained to him
bitterly of the intemperate and offensive tone of the ambassador.
The Cardinal did his best to excuse it, blamed the legates for
introducing the subject so inopportunely, and pledged himself to
repair the mischief, and restore a good understanding among all
parties, as soon as he returned to Trent. From that moment,
nevertheless, the feelings which prevailed between the French
Government and the Council were those of settled mistrust and
estrangement.
The ambassadors, after delivering their protest, quitted Trent
and repaired to Venice. The French bishops were instructed
to remain, and offer all possible opposition to the further pro-
gress of the measure which had given such provocation to their
sovereign ; but in case of any fresh invasion of the royal prero-
gative or the Gallican liberties, they too were to absent them-
selves at Once, without waiting for explanation or entering into
longer discussion. Many of them gladly seized this opportu-
nity to abandon the Council and return to their dioceses.
Others took flight in different directions; six had accompanied
the Cardinal to Rome; no more than eight continued at
Trent.* -
The decree relating to princes, when proposed for recon-
sideration, was resisted strenuously by all the ambassadors
present; and the legates found it useless to urge it further. It
was postponed, pro formá, to a future session; but in the end it
was dropped altogether.f
The Pope, on this occasion, made an indiscreet exhibition
of his displeasure against the party which, as he conceived, had
* Contin. de Fleury, Liv. clxvi. 44. fications, was passed by the Council in
t A decree of the Same character, its last session. Concil. Trident., Sess.
however, with abridgments and modi- | xxv. cap. 20.
A.D. 1563. THE COUNCIL OF TRENT. 163
instigated the late opposition in the Council. Some time pre-
viously (in order to mark his dissatisfaction at the terms of
peace granted to the Huguenots) he had cited several French
bishops suspected of favouring heresy to appear before the
tribunal of the Inquisition at Rome; a proceeding grossly in-
consistent with the Gallican usage, which provided that bishops
should be tried in the first instance before the metropolitan and
his comprovincials assembled in synod.” On the 22nd of
October, 1563, sentence of deposition or suspension was pub-
lished against the following members of the French hierarchy,
who were declared contumacious by reason of non-appearance:
the Cardinal de Chatillon, Bishop of Beauvais;f St. Romain,
Archbishop of Aix; Montluc, Bishop of Valence ; Caraccioli,
Bishop of Troyes; Barbançon, Bishop of Pamiers; Guillart,
Bishop of Chartres; St. Gelais, Bishop of Uzés; and D'Albret,
Bishop of Lescar. And besides inflicting these penalties on
ecclesiastics, Pius was rash enough to Summon the Queen of
Navarre to the bar of the holy Office, there to answer the charge
of heresy, under pain of being deprived of her dominions.
Jeanne d'Albret was indeed notoriously a Calvinist; she had
prohibited the exercise of the Catholic religion in her princi-
pality of Béarn, and had violently expelled the priests from the
churches, replacing them by ministers of her own persuasion.
Yet a penal process of this nature against a crowned head, so
nearly connected with the royal blood of France, was not likely
to be tamely tolerated. Charles IX. interfered with consider-
able dignity and vigour. He gave the Pope to understand that
he regarded the cause of the Queen of Navarre as his own; he
begged his Holiness to remember that his spiritual powers were
granted for the edification of Souls, and not to subserve political
ends; he intreated him to revoke the measures taken against
the Queen, and threatened, in case they were persisted in, to
resort to the means of redress which his ancestors had employed
under similar circumstances. He protested, likewise, against the
infraction of the Gallican liberties in the persons of the con-
* Mem. du Clergé de France, tom. ii. assumed the title of Comtesse de Beau-
pp. 422, 444, 456, 463. - vais. Eventually the cardinal was
f This prelate had openly joined the deprived of his preferments, and retired
Protestants, and had married a lady of to England, where he died in 1571,
Normandy, Isabelle de Hauteville, who
- M 2
164 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
demned prelates.” The Pontiff, who was not prepared for such
a resolute resistance, found it necessary to give way ; and,
after several conferences with the French ambassador at Rome,
signified that no further steps would be taken, either in the
matter of the Queen of Navarre, or as to the execution of
the sentence passed upon the bishops.
The Cardinal of Lorraine returned to Trent on the 9th of
November; and acted thenceforward as the Pope's plenipoten-
tiary for carrying into effect his anxious desire to close the
Council. When the decrees of reformation came to be finally
examined, the Cardinal said that, although he could have
wished that the restoration of discipline had been more exten-
sive and complete, he assented to the acts of the Council, in the
hope that the Sovereign Pontiff in his wisdom would supply
whatever might be wanting, either by reviving the ancient laws
of the Church, or by summoning future General Councils.
Little of importance occurred to disturb the harmony of the
twenty-fourth and twenty-fifth sessions. The French ambas-
sadors remained sullenly at Venice. The Cardinal repeatedly
urged them to return, reminding them that the objectionable
decrees had been greatly modified and virtually suppressed, and
pointing out how injurious it might be to the character both of
Erance and of the Council if the final transactions of such an
assembly should be unsanctioned by the presence of any official
delegate from the “eldest son of the Church.” They replied,
however, that they were acting in obedience to the King's
express order;t and that, independently of the odious chapter
on the “reformation of princes,” the Council had made, and
was about to publish, various other regulations repugnant to
the rights of the French Crown and to the liberties of the
Gallican Church ; so that, on the whole, the interests of France
might be better served by the absence of the royal commis-
sioners, than by their presence.
All parties at Trent being now agreed as to the policy of an
immediate termination of the Council, the remaining formalities
were despatched with almost precipitate haste. The fathers
* Era, Paolo, Liv. viii. § 67. Contin. proving their conduct, is given in Le
de Flewry, Liv. clxvi. 63. Plat, tom. vi. p. 287.
ºf The letter of Charles IX., ap- -
A.D. 1563. TERMINATION OF THE COUNCIL. 165
dutifully petitioned the Pope to confirm their decrees; they
passed a general declaration that all the acts of the Council,
from its commencement under Paul III. to its close, were to be
understood “without prejudice to the authority of the Apostolic
See;” and they assigned to the Pope the exclusive power of
interpreting the decrees, and of providing for any difficulties
that might arise with regard to their reception by the States of
Christendom.” The altered current of feeling in the Council,
occasioned by the conversion of the Cardinal of Lorraine and the
withdrawal of so many of the Gallican bishops, is signally
apparent in these last enactments. Six months previously, the
opposition to Ultramontanism was so powerful that a proposal
to assert the supremacy of the Pope as the chief pastor and
ruler of the Church had been negatived as impracticable. Now,
the entire legislation of the Council was surrendered to the un-
controlled arbitration of the Holy See; and an implied sanction
was thereby given to the dogma which the Church of other
days had so emphatically rejected, that the Roman Pontiff is
superior to General Councils.
The privileges thus liberally accorded were turned to the
utmost advantage at Rome. In the bull of confirmation, dated
January 26, 1564, the Pope prohibited all persons ecclesiastical
and civil, of whatever rank or dignity, from publishing any
comments, glosses, annotations, or interpretations, concerning
the acts and decrees of the Council, without his permission,
under pain of excommunication p30 facto.f. If in any case
interpretation might seem necessary, it was to be sought from
the Apostolic See, “the mistress of all the faithful, whose
authority had been so recently acknowledged by the Holy
Synod itself.” “All such difficulties,” said Pius, “we reserve
to be by us explained and decided, being prepared to provide
for the necessities of all the provinces, in such manner as we
shall judge most convenient; Ordaining that whatever may be
attempted to the contrary with respect to these matters, by any
person or authority whatsoever, is null and Void.” A congrega-
tion of eight cardinals was afterwards appointed for the purpose
of enforcing the due observance of the Tridentine decrees.
The Council terminated its labours on the 4th of December,
* Contin. de Fleury, Liv. clxviii. 6.
# See the bull “Benedictus Deus,” in Labbe, Concil, tom. xiv. p. 939.
166 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
1563; on which occasion the customary acclamations were pro-
nounced by the Cardinal of Lorraine, according to a form com-
posed by himself. Two hundred and fifty-five prelates subscribed
the decrees; but of this number only seven were representatives
of the Gallican Church. *
No sooner had the Cardinal of Lorraine returned to France,
than he was attacked in various quarters for having Sanctioned,
in the later sessions at Trent, decisions incompatible with the
laws of the land, the dignity of the Sovereign, and the liberties
of the Gallican Church. He defended himself by referring to
a formal protest which he had delivered in the twenty-fourth
session, expressing his assent to the acts of the Council with a
distinct reservation of all rights and privileges, ecclesiastical
and civil, appertaining both to Church and State in France.”
Besides which, as he observed with much justice, it was absurd
to expect that, with no more than six of his countrymen to back
him, he could withstand with effect an assembly of upwards
of two hundred bishops.
The Nuncio Santa Croce now applied to the Government to
promulgate an official announcement of the reception of the
Council, according to the forms of the constitution. Upon
this the King called a meeting of the heads of the Parlia-
ment and other great functionaries, to consider what course
should be taken. There was a sharp altercation on this
occasion between the Cardinal of Lorraine and the Chancellor
de l'Hôpital, who still held the post of chief adviser of the
Crown. The Chancellor strongly advocated the expediency of
postponing for the present any public recognition of the Council;
remarking that, since many points of importance,—for instance,
the usage of the Cup in the Eucharist,-had been referred to
the decision of the Pope, it was desirable to wait, at least, until
his Holiness should make known his judgment upon these
particulars. The Cardinal replied angrily. He did not know,
he said, what religion the Chancellor really belonged to; but it
seemed as if he had none other than that of doing all the
injury he could to himself and the house of Guise—a line of
conduct grossly ungrateful to those who had been his earliest
friends and benefactors. De l'Hôpital replied by declaring that
* See the Cardinal’s protest in Le Plat, tom. vi. p. 290.
A.D. 1563. CONTESTED DECREES OF THE COUNCIL. 167
he could never forget his many and deep obligations to his
Eminence of Lorraine; but that he must beg to be excused
from discharging them at the expense of the honour and interest
of his sovereign. The Queen interposed to stop the dispute;
and the Council adjourned without making any order as to the
reception of the decrees of Trent.” -
The demand was repeated again and again with increased
earnestness; and was evaded for some time upon similar pre-
texts. But at length it became necessary to speak distinctly ;
and the Parliament of Paris announced that the Council of
Trent could not be publicly received without prejudicing the
rights of the Crown and the liberties of the Gallican Church.
The principal points specified on the first head were the follow-
ing:—1. The decree against duels;f by which princes permit-
ting such encounters to take place in their territories were
excommunicated, and, moreover, were deprived of the lordship
of the town, chateau, or other spot in which the duel may have
been fought. 2. The decree authorizing the Pope to appoint
bishops in the room of those who might persist, after monition,
in remaining absent from their dioceses; f—an arrangement
clearly contrary to the Concordat. 3. The decree empowering:
ecclesiastical judges to impose pecuniary fines upon laymen,
and to compel payment by imprisonment, if necessary, making
use of their own officers for the purpose. § 4. That which placed
all public hospitals under the visitation and control of the
bishops. || 5. That by which the bishops were authorized to
compel the inhabitants of any place to provide a sufficient
stipend for the parish priest, and to make all necessary repairs
in parish churches."
The articles objected to as infringing the Gallican liberties
were those by which criminal causes affecting bishops were
reserved to the sole cognizance of the Pope, in contravention
of the ancient discipline, which made them amenable in the
first instance to the Metropolitan and the Provincial Council;
also, the right assigned to the Pope of evoking to Rome
ecclesiastical causes which may be pending before the ordinary
* Sainte Croix to Cardinal Borromeo, February 25, 1564. Archives Curieuses
de l’EI. de F., tom. vi. p. 155.
t Sess. xxv, cap. 19. i Sess. vi. cap. 1. § Sess. XXV. cap. 3.
| Sess, vii. cap. 15. * Sess, xxiv, cap. 13.
168 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. II.
judges.” The Parliament disapproved, moreover, the regulation
allowing the Pope to grant pensions and “reserves des fruits,”
chargeable on benefices; and that permitting the Mendicant
Orders to hold corporate property.t
The celebrated advocate Charles Dumoulin, being consulted
for his opinion on the Tridentine decrees, drew up and published
a statement containing a long catalogue of reasons which made
it impossible, in his judgment, that the Council should be
received in France. These grounds of exception relate in some
few instances to doctrine; but the author chiefly animadverts
upon the canons of discipline, many of which he declares to
be at variance with the ancient Councils, derogatory to the
rights of the king, the authority of his edicts and those of the
courts of justice,—as well as contrary to the liberties and im-
munities of the National Church.i.
Dumoulin was, unfortunately, a seceder from the Church ;
and his exposition of constitutional law was in some particulars
tinctured too strongly by his known religious partialities. His
enemies denounced him to the Parliament, on the ground that
his publication had been made without the king's permission,
and that he had compromised the Government by pretending
that it was put forth by order of the Council of State. Upon
this he was severely interrogated by the magistrates as to the
views expressed in his writings; which he could not deny to be
substantially those of the Protestants. The Parliament, while
strenuously Gallican, was rigid in its abhorrence of heresy; and
in consequence, although Dumoulin's conclusions agreed with
their own as to the inadmissibility of the decrees above specified,
they committed him without scruple to the Conciergerie. He
was soon released by the King's Orders, no doubt through the
interference of De l'Hôpital;-promising, as the conditions of
his liberty, that he would publish nothing in future on political
or theological questions, and that he would carefully avoid
speculations on the authority of Councils and of the Apostolic
See, which might occasion scandal to his Majesty's subjects."
* Sess, xiii, cap. 8; xxiv. cap. 5; seqq.
cap. 20. § De Thou, Høst. Univ., Liv. xxxvi.
+ Fra Paolo, Liv. viii. § 86. Charles Dumoulin shortly afterwards
j. See this important document in returned to the communion of the
Lho Mémoires de Condé, tom. v. p. 81 et Church, and died a Catholic in 1566.
A.D. 1565. PROVINCIAL SYNODS IN FRANCE. 169
Special instances for the reception of the Council in France
were made in the year 1565, by a joint embassy from the Pope,
the King of Spain, and the Duke of Savoy. But Charles IX,
under the direction of his mother and De l'Hôpital, returned an
ambiguous response, from which it was gathered that, while he
was anxious not to offend the great Catholic Powers, he had
determined to adjourn indefinitely a measure which would have
been treated by the Huguenots as almost equivalent to a decla-
ration of war.” -
The French bishops, however, obtained authority from the
Government to give effect within their dioceses to those of the
Tridentine canons which were not repugnant to the laws and
constitutions of the realm. For this purpose the Cardinal of
Lorraine convoked without delay a provincial synod at Reims,
at which a series of decrees were passed in exact conformity with
those of Trent, and the clergy were ordered to provide them-
selves with copies of the acts of the Council in French and
Latin, and to regulate their teaching and conduct by that
standard. At the provincial Council of Cambrai, held in the
following year, the decrees were accepted as the authoritative
law of the Church, and the Confession of Faith prescribed in
the Pope's bull of November, 1564 (commonly called the Creed
of Pope Pius IV.), was signed by all the prelates and deputies
of the clergy present. Similar measures were taken subsequently
by the Metropolitans of Rouen, Tours, Bordeaux, Aix, Bourges,
and Toulouse. But it must not be imagined that this ecclesi-
astical recognition of the Council gave to its enactments the
character and force of statute law in France. The approbation
of the Church (though even this was subject to certain limita-
tions) made them canonically binding on the clergy; but they
were not on that account placed on the same footing with those
laws which the executive authority undertook to enforce upon
all classes of French subjects. In order to be embodied with
the national legal code, it was requisite that the Council should
be accepted by the sovereign, sanctioned by the Council of State,
and registered by the Parliament—the constitutional guardian
of the laws of the kingdom.
To obtain for the Tridentine decrees this universally coercive
* De Thou, Liv, xxxvi, f Labbe and Cossart, tom. xv. p. 43.
170 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. II.
jurisdiction was an object which the Gallican Church pursued
through many generations with indefatigable zeal; but inva-
riably without success. The “remonstrances” of the Assem-
blies of the clergy, in 1567, 1577, 1579, 1582, 1585, 1588,
and 1596, and on other occasions, were met with the stereo-
typed reply, that it was judged inexpedient, for reasons of state
which had been often cited, to proceed to any official publi-
cation of the Council. Nor has any such ratification of its
authority by the civil power been granted in France from that
day to the present. In regard to doctrine, the definitions of
Trent constitute the law of the Church, as in all other branches
of the Roman obedience; many of its decrees of discipline,
moreover, have been carried into execution by the Gallican pre-
lates, as salutary in themselves, and clearly in accordance with
the spirit of the ancient canons; but neither its doctrine nor
its discipline has ever been incorporated by the State with the
body of national law.
It is not to be denied that such a policy was inconsistent with
that high profession of Catholicism upon which the French
monarchy had been wont to pride itself, as one of its essential
characteristics, from the earliest records of its history. For,
after all, the Council of Trent was either a legitimate assembly
of the Western Church by representation, or it was not. If it was
mot, why did France recognize and deal with it as such P Why
send ambassadors to attend its sessions? Why appeal to its
judgment, and seek its support under the complicated political
difficulties of the time? But if it was a legitimate Council,
upon what principle was its authority questioned and its deci-
sions disallowed 2 Philip of Spain was consistent in accepting
the Council; the Lutherans and Huguenots and Anglicans were
consistent, according to their light, in rejecting it; but where
was the consistency of the “eldest son of the Church "?
That this anomalous behaviour on the part of the French
Government admits of sufficient explanation, is abundantly
evident from the facts which have been placed before the reader
in the course of the foregoing narrative. But we cannot be
surprised to find that that explanation was anything but satis-
factory to the great majority of the Gallican clergy. In their
eyes, the refusal to publish the Council of Trent was scarcely
less odious than the suppression of the right of free election by
A.D. 1565. ENFORCEMENT OF THE CONCORDAT. 171
the provisions of the Concordat. It seemed as if the Govern-
ment were bent upon adding wantonly to their mortification.
The Concordat, detested by the clergy as having deprived them
of the most cherished privilege of their order, was rigidly en-
forced by the Crown to its very letter; while the Tridentine
code, which the Church regarded as the charter of its restored
liberties—the Palladium of its authority—was, for that reason
and no other, jealously disavowed and discountenanced. This
fresh grievance was keenly irritating to all Catholics who had
not been corrupted by covetousness and the blandishments of
court favour. It was a germ of strife, which proved cala-
mitously fruitful during the subsequent convulsions of the
“League.”
172 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. III.
CIH. A. PTE R III.
THE famous association known as the “Catholic League,” or
“Holy Union,” took its rise from the strangely indulgent terms
granted to the Huguenots by the “Peace of Monsieur,” in
April, 1576. Four years had scarcely elapsed since the blood-
stained Eve of St. Bartholomew. It had been hoped that by
means of that execrable crime the Reformation would have
been finally crushed and extinguished in France; but instead
of this, a treaty was concluded with the heretics, which placed
them in a more favourable situation than they had ever Occu-
pied before. The free exercise of their religion throughout the
kingdom, with the exception of Paris and the actual residence
of the sovereign; permission to hold synods, provided that an
officer of the Crown was always present ; the establishment of
“chambres mi-parties” in the Parliaments, to take cognizance
of all causes between Protestants and Catholics; the legal
recognition of the marriage of priests and monks who had
seceded from the Church to the Calvinist communion; and the
concession of certain cautionary towns, to be held for a specific
time by Huguenot officers and troops; such were the conditions
imposed upon the Crown by this remarkable act of pacification.*
We cannot wonder that it was regarded by the majority of
Catholics as a wicked and cowardly betrayal of their most Sacred
interests. They ascribed it to its true Source, namely, the
hopeless incapacity of the reigning monarch, Henry III. ; a
prince whose monstrous vices and gross misgovernment were
destined to reduce France to a state of disorganization bordering
on national ruin.
The idea of a general confederation of Catholics for the defence
of the Faith against the inroads of heresy had been suggested by
the Cardinal of Lorraine during the Council of Trent, and had
been favourably entertained at the Court of Rome.f The Duke
* De Thou, Liv. lxii. L’Estoile, Journal de Henri III., tom. i. p. 133.
f Contin. de Fleury, Liv. Clkxiv. 62.
A.D. 1576. CATHOLIC LEAGUE. 173
of Guise was to have been placed at the head of this alliance;
but his sudden death changed the face of affairs, and the pro-
ject fell into abeyance. The Cardinal of Lorraine was now no
more; he died at Avignon, at the age of fifty, in December,
1574; on which occasion the Queen Mother, imagining that the
event would destroy for ever the ascendency of the house of
Guise, congratulated herself and those around her, that “hence-
forth there would be peace in France.” She miscalculated.
Henry, the third Duke of Guise, inherited in their fullest
extent the ambition, the religious ardour, the lofty political
aspirations, the enterprising spirit, the personal popularity, of
his predecessors. The League of 1576 was conceived entirely
in his interest. He was the leader naturally pointed out for
such a movement;-a movement which, although its ulterior
objects were at first studiously concealed, aimed in reality at
substituting the family of Lorraine for that of Valois on the
throne of France.
The designs of the confederates, as set forth in the original
manifesto which was circulated for signature, seemed at first
sight highly commendable, both with regard to religion and
politics. According to this document, the Union was formed
for three great purposes: to uphold the Catholic Church; to
suppress heresy; and to maintain the honour, the authority,
and prerogatives of the Most Christian king and his successors.
On closer examination, however, expressions were detected which
hinted at less constitutional projects. “Many good Catholics,”
says Palma-Cayet, “ saw that underneath these articles there lay
hid something which was likely to produce infinite trouble and
division in France.” f Thus, for instance, it was provided that
if any of the confederates should be attacked or molested, the
Union was bound to defend them, even by force of arms, against
any and all persons whatsoever. Again, the head of the League,
* Pierre de L’Estoile, Journal de
Henri III., tom. i. p. 109 (Petitot’s
Collection). The Cardinal died of a
fever brought on by exposure to the
weather during a religious procession.
“La maladie,” says L’Estoile, “etoit
au cerveau, et jusqu’à la finil me Savoit
ce qu’il disoit et faisoit ; mourant en
grand trouble et inquiétude d'esprit,
invoquant même les diables Sur Ses
derniers soupirs; chose épouvantable,
et toutefois temoignée de tous ceux qui
lui assistirent.” Catherine is said to
have been disturbed more than once by
spectral apparitions of the departed
prelate. Mezerai, however, gives a
different account of the causes and
circumstances of his death.-Hist, dw
Bégne de Henri III., tom. i. p. 114, 115.
f Palma-Cayet, Introduction to the
Chronologie Novemaire (Petitot's Col-
lection, tom. xxxviii. p. 257.)
174 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. III.
who was not yet named, was to exercise absolute authority over
all the members; any one refusing to obey him was to be
punished as he might direct. He was to be the sole judge of
any dispute which might arise in the Society; and no one was
to resort to the ordinary course of justice without his permis-
sion. Moreover, all persons refusing to join the Union were to
be treated as enemies, and encountered sword in hand.
From this significant, though mysterious, language we may
gather that the Leaguers contemplated from the first the estab-
lishment of a central power independent of the sovereign, and
foreign to the constitution. But their secret aims became
incontestably manifest soon afterwards, when one of their con-
fidential agents, an advocate named David, happened to die
suddenly on his return from Rome, and his papers fell into
the hands of the Huguenots, who immediately made them
public. Their contents were of So extravagant and dangerous
a nature, that at first they were considered to be forgeries;
but their genuineness was established beyond question by
a despatch received by Henry III. from his ambassador at
Madrid, enclosing a copy of the most important of these docu-
ments, which had been forwarded to the King of Spain.” A
change of dynasty in France was the avowed object of the
scheme thus disclosed. It set forth, in substance, that the
Capetian monarchs were usurpers, the throne belonging right-
fully to the house of Lorraine as the lineal descendants of
Charlemagne. The Divine malediction had pursued the intru-
sive princes from generation to generation. Some had been
deprived of reason; some had died in captivity; others had
been visited with the heaviest censures of the Church. Their
continual embroilments with the Holy See had given birth to
the damnable form of error commonly called the “Liberty of
the Gallican Church,” which, in point of fact, was a mere screen
for heresy. The late peace, so advantageous to the Calvinists,
would have the effect of establishing that sect permanently in
France, unless the opportunity were seized to restore the crown
to its legitimate owners. To this end the clergy must denounce,
both in the pulpit and the confessional, the concessions just
made to the Sectaries, and excite the people to oppose their execu-
* De Thou, Liv. lxiii,
A.D. 1576. OBJECTS OF TEIE LEAGUE. 175
tion. Lists must be drawn up by the parish priests throughout
the kingdom of all persons capable of bearing arms, and they
should be prepared to take part in a general rising in defence
of the Catholic religion, under the leadership of the Duke of
Guise. Every effort must be made to secure, in the States-
General about to be held at Blois, a preponderance of members
solemnly pledged to the cause of the League. The articles of
the engagement to be subscribed by them should be submitted
to the Pope, and embodied, under the sanction of his Holiness,
in a formal covenant to be entered into between the see of Rome
and the French nation. Any prince of the blood opposing the
proceedings of the States-should be declared incapable of
succeeding to the throne; if in a lower rank, they should be
banished from the realm, and their property confiscated. The
three orders of the States-General should make a public
profession of allegiance to the Pontiff and the ancient Church;
they should promulgate the Council of Trent; they should ab-
solutely revoke all edicts favourable to heresy. The king was
to be requested to name the Duke of Guise Lieutenant-General
of the kingdom. The League being thus put in possession of the
supreme command of the royal forces, the Duke of Alençon *.
was to be tried for high treason as an abettor of heretics and
rebels, and decisive measures were to be taken for the total
Suppression and abolition of the “Pretended Reformed Reli-
gion.” After this the Duke of Guise, with the advice and
permission of the Pope, was to imprison Henry for the rest of
his days in a monastery, after the example of his ancestor
Pepin when he dethroned the Merovingian Childeric. Lastly,
the heir of the Carlovingians was to be proclaimed King of
France; and, on assuming the crown, was to make such arrange-
ments with his Holiness as would secure the complete recog-
nition of the sovereignty of the Vicar of Christ, by abrogating
for ever the so-called “liberties of the Gallican Church.” T
Such were the particulars of this revolutionary plot;-a plot
which, unhappily, was viewed with cordial sympathy, and sup-
ported with enthusiastic zeal, by many of the prelates, and a large
majority of the parochial clergy, of France. It was a line of
conduct widely at variance with the principles and traditions
* “Monsieur,” the King's brother.
f Mémoires de la Ligue, tom, i. p. 5–7. Anquetil, Esprit de la Ligue, tom. ii. p. 177.
176 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. III.
of their order; but if revolt from a lawful sovereign is ever
justifiable by the pressure of exceptional circumstances, some
excuse may be found for it in the state of the French court and
government during the disgraceful reign of Henry III.
Not only had the king made himself personally odious by his
life of shameless profligacy, but the Church had been subjected
of late years to a series of provocations which had seriously
shaken its ancient loyalty. The right of patronage acquired
by the Concordat was more and more scandalously abused.
Every rule of discipline was outraged by the practice of be-
stowing bishoprics and abbeys upon laymen and others noto-
riously disqualified; so that it had become the exception, rather
than the rule, for a bishop to reside in his diocese and dis-,
charge his pastoral duties. Again, the taxes levied on the
clergy had increased to an intolerable extent. Besides defraying,
on behalf of the Government, the whole of the annuities called
“rentes de l’Hôtel de Ville,” they had been mulcted to the
amount of sixty millions of livres (upwards of 600,000l.) be-
tween 1560 and 1576, in extraordinary subsidies. Added to
this, the Church had been deeply wronged by repeated aliena-
tion of its landed property. Charles IX. extorted from the
clergy in this manner an annual revenue of 50,000 crowns in
1563. A similar act of confiscation, sanctioned by a bull of
Pius W., took place in 1568, a proviso being added on this oc-
casion by his Holiness, that the money should be employed in
prosecuting the war against the heretics. A third alienation,
to the amount of 50,000 crowns of income, was submitted to
in 1576. It was the Soreness arising from these and other ag-
gressions of the temporal power which led to the importunate
demands of the French synods for the promulgation of the
Council of Trent; and the pertinacious refusal of that boon by
the Government became a further grievance which was bitterly
resented. The lenient treatment of the heretics contrasted
vexatiously with the harshness and rapacity thus shown to the
dominant communion. By the treaty of 1576 the Protestants
were placed, in respect both of civil and religious rights, almost,
if not altogether, on an equal footing with Catholics; a stretch
of liberality unprecedented in France, and deemed by many to
be a grave infraction of the fundamental laws of the realm.
The exclusive profession and maintenance of the Catholic reli-
A.D. 1585. ARGUMENTS OF THE LEAGUE. 177
gion, it was contended, was not only a “law of the king,”—not
a mere ordonnance of any individual sovereign—but “a law
of the kingdom ; ” an enactment, that is, of the three Estates of
the national legislature, and one which could not be repealed
but by the same authority. The king was not entitled to claim
allegiance from his subjects until he had bound himself, by his
coronation oath, to observe this statute; it was upon this abso-
lute indefeasible condition that he held his crown.” The
position now yielded to the Separatists, therefore, was a breach
of the original compact made between the French crown and
the French people, when Clovis was baptized and solemnly
anointed by S. Remi. The reigning monarch, it was evident,
could not fulfil the essential purposes for which his office
existed ; he could not efficiently protect the one Apostolic faith
of the one Apostolic Church. Under such circumstances what
was the duty of good subjects? Ought they not to take counsel
and band together to uphold those great constitutional principles
which a vacillating and pusillanimous prince seemed ready to
abandon 2 What confidence could Catholics repose in one whose
policy consisted in friendly negociations with the arch-heretic
Henry of Navarre, and in loading the Huguenots with privileges
and guarantees which made them almost independent of the
central government? Was it not imperative to provide a
remedy for such ruinous incapacity ? The moment had arrived
when all true-hearted patriots must combine in defence of the
institutions of their country and the religion of their ancestors.
Those who held aloof would vainly reproach themselves here-
after, if they should live to see the day when throne and altar,
* This principle was distinctly enun- reigns and their subjects is taken by
ciated in the manifesto of the Cardinal Fénélon (De Summi Pontificis auctori-
of Bourbon, March, 31, 1585. “Ce tate, cap. xxxix.). “Catholicarum gen-
royaume tres-Chrétien ne souffrira. | titum haec fuit sententia animis altö
jamais regner un hérétique, attendu impressa, Scilicot supremam auctori-
que les sujets me sont tenus de recon- tatem committi non posse nisi Principi
noitre ni soutenir la domination d'un Catholico, camque csso legem sive
prince dévoyé de la foi Catholique ct conditionem tanto contractui appositam
relaps, étant le premier serment que | populos inter ct principcm ut populi
fassent nos rois, lorsque l’on leur met principi fideles parcrent, modo princeps
la couronne sur la tête, maintenir la ipse Catholicae religioni obsequeretir.
religion Catholique, Apostolique et | Quă lege posità, passim putabant
Romaine, sous leguel Serment ils Ommes solutum esse winculum sacra-
regoivent celui de fidelité de leurs mentifidelitatis a totă gente praestitum,
sujets, et non autrement.” Mem. de la simul atque princeps, ea lege violatā,
Ligue, tom. i. p. 56. The same view Catholicie, religioni contumaci animo
of the contract between Catholic sove- resisteret.” *
WOL. L. N
178 THE GALLICAN CEIURCEſ. CHAP. III.
public law and private freedom, political credit and national
unity, had been demolished in one indiscriminate overthrow.
Thus argued the zealots of the League; and the most ener-
getic and influential among them, as I have said, were priests
and prelates of the Gallican Church. Some idea may be formed
of the prevalence of clerical disaffection from the fact that, of all
the parochial benefices in the capital, there were only three
that were not held by declared adherents of the faction.* Each
parish, carefully organized by its pastor, became a focus of sedi-
tious agitation. Three out of the four personages styled “the
pillars of the League” were ecclesiastics;—Jean Prévost, doctor
of the Sorbonne and curé of S. Sévérin, Jean Boucher, also a
member of the Sorbonne and curé of S. Benoît, and Matthieu de
Launay, a canon of Soissons. The fourth, the Sieur de Roche-
blonde, was a layman, but closely connected with the Church,
being “réceveur des décimes” for the diocese of Paris. They
were soon joined by others, among whom were two in high station,
Aymar Hennequin, Bishop of Rennes, and Guillaume Rose,
Bishop of Senlis; and the secret committee thus formed after-
wards developed into the Council of the “Seize,” which for many
years held absolute sway in the metropolis. The clerical
leaguers distinguished themselves so much as preachers, that
in a short time they monopolised all the important pulpits in
Paris. Year after year they were appointed to deliver the Lenten
course of sermons at the cathedral of Notre-Dame ; which was
esteemed an office of high honour, and gave unbounded facili-
ties for exciting the fanatical passions of the multitude.
The death of the Duke of Anjou, presumptive heir to the
throne, in 1584, determined the League to immediate action.
In the event of the king's dying without issue, which was most
probable, the crown would now devolve upon Henry of Bourbon,
the acknowledged leader of the Huguenots;–a contingency
which, in the view of the ultra-Catholics (and, as we have seen,
they were not without plausible grounds for maintaining it)
would subvert the entire framework of the constitution. They
were compelled, therefore, by the necessities of their position, to
abandon the principles of Divine right and hereditary succession,
* Ch. Labitte, La democratie chez Sulpice, and St. Méry.
les Predicateurs de la Ligue, p. 76. The f Palma-Cayet, Introduction to the
three exceptions were St. Eustache, St. | Chronologie Novenaire, p. 273.
A.D. 1585. SECRET TREATY OF THE LEAGUE. 179
and to look round for a candidate who, in default of legitimate
claim by birth, possessed qualifications for the throne which
they accounted even more important. Not venturing to put
forth openly the pretensions of the Duke of Guise, they fixed
upon the Cardinal of Bourbon, Archbishop of Touen, uncle of
the King of Navarre; an insignificant person, far advanced in
years, whose name was evidently borrowed for mere purposes
of temporary convenience. A flattering proposal was made to
the cardinal, and entertained by him, that he should procure a
dispensation from his vows, and afterwards marry the Duchess
of Montpensier, sister of the Duke of Guise. -
In January, 1585, the chiefs of the League signed a secret
treaty at Joinville with the King of Spain, by which the con-
tracting parties made common cause for the extirpation of all
sects and heresies in France and the Netherlands, and for
excluding from the French throne princes who were heretics, or
who “treated heretics with public impunity.” It was stipulated
that the decrees of the Council of Trent should be received and
enforced in France in their full extent. Liberal supplies of men
and money were to be furnished to the insurgents by Philip
from the moment that war should break out ; the subsidies to
be repayable on the accession of the Cardinal de Bourbon, “ or of
his successor.””
The Leaguers lost no time in seeking for their enterprise the
all-important sanction of the Holy See. For this purpose they
despatched as their envoy to Rome a Jesuit named Claude
Matthieu, whose indefatigable activity in their service made him
famous afterwards under the title of the “courier of the League.”
The Jesuit fraternity in France had embraced with passionate
ardour the anti-royalist cause. The Sole exception was the
celebrated Edmond Auger, at this time confessor to Henry III. ;
who, being sincerely attached to his royal penitent, refused to
listen to any treasonable overtures, and exerted himself to con-
firm the wavering fidelity of others. The General of the order,
Aquaviva, testified his disapproval of this conduct by sum-
marily removing Auger from his confidential post at court.f
Matthieu, in concert with Cardinal de Pellevè, Archbishop of
* Contin, de Fleury, Liv. clxxvii. 2.
† Cretineau-Joly, Hist, de la Comp, de Jésus, tom, ii. p. 400.
N 2
180 - THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. III.
Sens, who was then residing at Rome, did his utmost to obtain
from Pope Gregory XIII. an authoritative approval of the
League and its proceedings. His Holiness, however, was cau-
tious and reserved. He expressed in general terms his consent
to the project of taking up arms against the heretics, and
granted a plenary indulgence to those who should aid in that
holy work. But he declined to countenance the deposition of
the king by violence,” and answered vaguely when pressed to
launch a formal sentence of excommunication against Henry of
Navarre. Nor did Gregory's successor, Sixtus W., show himself
at all better disposed to endorse the revolutionary views of the
League. He met the solicitations of the Duke of Nevers by
inquiring “in what school he had learned that it was lawful to
form political associations contrary to the will of his sovereign P’’
He sympathized with Henry in his perplexities, and predicted
that, ere long, he would be compelled to resort for help to the
heretics in order to emancipate himself from the tyranny of
the Catholics. At length, however, Sixtus was persuaded to
fulminate a bull against the King of Navarre and the Prince of
Condé, in which, after expatiating in unmeasured language on
the supreme power of the Apostolic See over all earthly poten-
tates, who, when they failed in their duty, “were to be chastised
and crushed as ministers of Satan,”—he declared the two princes
to be heretics relapsed, and notorious fautors and abettors of
heresy; as such, they had incurred all the pains and penalties
denounced by the Church on these offences; and, in conse-
quence, the said Henry of Bourbon was deprived of his pre-
tended kingdom of Navarre, and of the principality of Béarn,
and Henry of Condé in like manner was stripped of whatever
dignities, domains, fiefs, and lordships, he might possess. Both
culprits, together with their heirs and posterity, were pro-
nounced for ever incapable of succeeding to the throne of
France, or any other dignity; their subjects and vassals were
released from their oath of homage, and forbidden to obey them
under pain of excommunication. Lastly, the King of France
* “Le Pape ne trouve pas bon que | tinssent en bride, et lui donnassent bon
l'on attente sur la Vie du Roi, car conseil et le lui fissent executer, on
cela me se peut faire en bonne con- trouveroit bon cela.” — Memoires de
science; mais si en pouvoit Se Saisir de Nevers. Anquetil, Esprit de la Ligue.
sa personne, et lui donner gens qui le - -
A.D. 1585. BULL AGAINST HENRY OF NAVARRE. 181
was exhorted to cause the sentence to be executed, and the
prelates of the realm were enjoined, on their canonical obe-
dience, to publish it in their respective dioceses.”
Such was the state of imbecility and helplessness to which
Henry of Valois was reduced, that he durst not deal with this
outrageous document as it deserved. The Parliament of Paris
remonstrated against it with manly vigour, representing to the
king that he ought to treat it as one of his royal ancestors had
done with a bull of similar import—namely, to consign it to the
flames in the presence of the Gallican Church, and to take such
exemplary vengeance upon those who had expedited it from
Rome as should serve for a lesson to all posterity. They
firmly refused to register the bull, and the king, too feeble to
enforce obedience, contented himself with allowing the matter
to drop in silence. Henry of Navarre, however, published an
indignant reply to the Pope's sentence, appealing against it,
“comme d’abus,” to the French court of peers; he retorted the
charge of heresy upon Sixtus himself, and offered to prove
it before a free and legitimate Council; and he concluded by
threatening measures of retaliation, such as had been taken
by several princes of his family in former days against similar
acts of insolent aggression by the Court of Rome. The Pope
openly expressed his admiration of this exhibition of spirit
and energy on the part of the Huguenot chief.
The excommunication of the King of Navarre was an im-
portant boon to the Leaguers; they now increased rapidly in
general credit and popularity as the champions of the Orthodox
faith. Their preachers began to declaim vehemently, not only
against the heretics, but against Henry III., whom they per-
sisted in representing as a partisan and accomplice of these
enemies of the Church. The irregularities of the king's life,
combined with his occasional paroxysms of superstitious devo-
tion, furnished abundant food for their philippics. The grotesque
processions of the “confrèries de pénitents” were ridiculed with-
out mercy by Maurice Poncet, curé of S. Pierre des Arcis, a
* Memoires de la Ligue, tom. i. p. Pierre de l’Estoile, the author of the
343. Journal de Henri III. L’Estoile was
f P. de L’Estoile, Journal de Henri a member of the Grand Conseil, and
III., tom. i. p. 299. (Petitot, 1 Série, an “audiencier' of the Chancery of
toum. xlv.) France. - - tº
† This protest was drawn up by -
I82 # THE GALLICAN CHURCH. - CHAP. III.
divine of great eloquence and considerable learning, though not
remarkable for refinement of taste or diction. Poncet made the
walls of his church ring with denunciations of these hypocritical
devotees, who, after parading the streets barefoot, arrayed in
sackcloth, and displaying Ostentatiously the Outward signs of
austere asceticism, were accustomed to pass the night in riotous
feasting and gross debauchery. Henry, resenting this exposure,
banished the offender to his abbey of Saint Père at Melun; but
he was released after a brief confinement, and returned to Paris
by the king's permission, his Majesty remarking that “he had
always believed the good doctor to have a zeal for God, but not
according to knowledge; and that there was much excuse for
him, since he was not quick enough of apprehension to see
through the artifices of those by whom he was instigated. He
had plenty of scholarship, but was grievously deficient in judg-
ment.”* Poncet, unsubdued by the king's leniency, resumed
his usual incisive style of pulpit Oratory, and persevered in it
till his death, which happened in 1586.
Guillaume Rose, one of the king's preachers in ordinary, made
himself equally conspicuous by Satirizing the eccentricities of
his sovereign. Henry rebuked him for his insolence, and Rose
sued for forgiveness; whereupon the king sent him a few days
afterwards four hundred crowns, “to help him to buy sugar and
honey to sweeten his bitter words, that he might pass Lent
more comfortably.”f Rose was already grand-master of the
college of Navarre, and in 1584 the king preferred him to
the bishopric of Senlis; but, notwithstanding these marks of
favour, he continued to vituperate his benefactor, and forment
sedition with the utmost violence and malignity. Such was his
extravagance, that it was ascribed to a sort of frenzy or delirium,
to which he was said to be periodically subject.
Every day the League became more desperate in its attacks
on the tottering throne of the last of the Valois. The Duchess
of Montpensier, who regarded Henry with profound and deadly
hatred, maintained a troop of preachers regularly in her pay,
whose sole business was to inflame the minds of the populace
against him, and prepare them for his forcible deposition. She
was wont to say that she had done more for the good cause by
* P. de L’Estoile, tom, i. p. 264. # Ibid., p. 252.
A.D. 1587. IMBECILITY OF HENRY III. 183
means of her preachers, than her brothers had done by their
treaties and their armies.* They were actively seconded by the
Jesuits, the mendicant friars, the Sorbonne, the Pope's nuncio,
and the secret emissaries of Philip of Spain. The Sorbonne, at
a meeting on the 16th of December, 1587, passed a resolution
that “it was lawful to take away the government from an
ill-conducted and incompetent prince, just as a guardian who
proved himself unworthy of confidence might be deprived of his
office.” For this piece of effrontery the doctors received a
severe castigation from the king himself, who summoned them
to his presence at the Louvre, and upbraided them before the
whole court for assailing him with personal calumnies, and
impugning his administration of the affairs of state. He was
not disposed, he said, to visit their offence very seriously, con-
sidering that their resolution had been passed after dinner. He
would have them know, however, that an outrage of the same
kind had been promptly punished by Pope Sixtus, who had
lately sent to the galleys certain Franciscan preachers who had
dared to slander him in their discourses. They (the doctors)
deserved a like treatment, or, perhaps, something worse; never-
theless, he was willing to forgive and forget the past, on con-
dition that such conduct was not repeated. In case of any fresh
indiscretion, he should order his court of Parliament to bring
them to condign justice forthwith.f
But Henry’s circumstances were such that neither his acts of
clemency nor his threats of severity had any practical effect.
His authority soon began to be openly set at defiance. The
Duchess of Montpensier, who was in the habit of promenading
the streets of Paris with a pair of golden Scissors at her waist,
destined, as she boasted, to perform the ceremony of tonsure
upon Henry when he exchanged his throne for a cloister,
received a royal Order to quit the capital. She treated it with
utter unconcern, and continued to indulge in the same strain of
insulting bravado with impunity. A preacher at St. Sévérin had
delivered himself in language so inflammatory and dangerous
to the public peace, that it was impossible to avoid taking
notice of it; but no sooner was it known that the myrmidons
of justice were in quest of him, than the populace, incited by the
* P. de I’Estoile, f Ibid., tom, i. p. 344.
184 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. III.
clergy (especially by Boucher, who caused the tocsin to be rung
from the steeple of his church of S. Benoît), rose en masse,
attacked the royal archers with overwhelming numbers, and
drove them out of the quartier in confusion.”
This first armed collision between the Leaguers and the
Government was quickly followed by the “day of the barri-
eades” (May 12, 1588), the events of which virtually dispos-
sessed Henry of the crown. To say that the final downfall of
the house of Valois was the work of the Gallican Church,
would be an overstatement of the truth; but that it was brought
about through the influence and agency of Gallican bishops and
clergy is, unhappily, beyond a question. -
The League was now the dominant power in France. The
Ring was compelled, as the condition of retaining even the
semblance of authority, to accept the “Edict of Union,” which
bound him to employ the whole strength of the kingdom for the
extermination of the heretics, to declare heretics incapable of
succeeding to the throne, and to abandon to the chief Leaguers
all important posts of trust and command. Among other pro-
motions, Pierre d’Espinac, Archbishop of Lyons, one of the most
turbulent intriguers of the time, was made a member of the
Privy Council, and promised the reversion of the office of keeper
of the seals. He was also recommended to the Pope for a car-
dinal's hat.
The States-General, which met immediately afterwards at
Blois, consisted almost exclusively of nominees of the Duke of
Guise and ardent apostles of the League. Among them we find
the names of Claude de Saintes, Bishop of Evreux; Aymar
Hennequin, Bishop of Rennes; and two Parisian curés, Cueilly
and Pelletier. The “Seize,” who were now omnipotent at Paris,
laboured on this occasion to remodel the French monarchy, and
reduce it to a popular constitutional government; proposing that
the King should be made amenable to the judgment of the
legislature in case of abuse of power; requiring that the States-
General should be consulted before any proclamation of peace
or war; and prohibiting all levying of taxes without their
* See the Dialogue d'entre le Maheu- posed by Cromé, a member of the
stre et le Manamt, a curious brochure of “Seize.”
the time, printed in the third volume f Palma-Cayet, Introduction, p. 397.
of the Satyre Menippée. It was colm-
sº
A.D. 1588. ASSASSINATION OF THE GUISES. 185
express consent. They also provoked an acrimonious debate on
the vexed question of the reception of the Council of Trent.
Commissioners were named to confer with the law officers of the
crown on the subject; one of whom, the Archbishop of Lyons,
reviled the “Gallican liberties” as a mere human invention, a
transparent device for subverting the authority of the Apostolic
See, a specious veil for people of suspected opinions in religion,
eager to conceal their errors by professing extraordinary zeal
for the interests of the State. He was answered at length by
the Avocat-General, who did not omit to taunt him with his
anomalous antecedents; for in former days this versatile pre-
late had been a professed Calvinist, and was accused of having
sacrificed his conscience to certain prospects of preferment held
out to him as the price of conforming to the established Church.
The dispute was continued by St. Gelais de Lansac, ci-devant
ambassador of Charles IX. at Trent, who pompously eulogized
the Council, and expatiated on the obligations of Catholics to
submit to its decrees. He was sharply catechised by the
Avocat-General as to the sentiments he had held upon these
points twenty years before; and a scene of altercation followed,
which became so tumultuous that it was judged necessary to
close the sitting.” -
These undignified squabbles were cut short by the portentous
tidings of the assassination of the Duke of Guise. Over-elated
by his successes, that haughty noble had proceeded to intoler-
able lengths of audacity; and Henry, pleading the universal
right of self-defence, and the impossibility of dealing with such
a criminal by any of the Ordinary forms of executive justice,
removed him from his path by a deliberate act of murder. His
brother, the Cardinal of Guise, was despatched secretly in prison
the next day. Within seven months afterwards the penalty of
this great crime was exacted by the avenging dagger of Jacques
Clement. Its immediate fruit was the outburst of a desperate
revolt in Paris and the provinces, and the Organization of a rebel
government under the auspices of the League.
The clergy were the prime movers of the insurrection. On
the first news of the catastrophe at Blois, Guincestre, or
Lincestre, curé of St. Gervais, made a furious attack upon Henry
* Mezerai, Hist, du Régne de Henri III., tom. iii. p. 204 et seqq.
186 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. III.
from the pulpit, calling him a “vilain Herodes” (an anagram of
Henri de Valois), a poisoner, an assassin, and declaring that he
had forfeited all claims to allegiance. In another discourse at
St. Barthélemi, the same preacher called upon his congregation
to hold up their hands and join in a solemn oath to expend the
last denier in their purses and the last drop of blood in their
veins in taking vengeance for the death of the two princes of
Lorraine. Appealing by name to Achille de Harlai, first pre-
sident of the Parliament, who was seated opposite the pulpit,
Guincestre bade him raise his hand high—higher than the rest
—so that all present might see it. A refusal, under the circum-
stances, might have been the signal for uproar and outrage, and
de Harlai obeyed.* François Pigenat, curé of St. Nicolas des
Champs, another incendiary Orator, preached a funeral sermon
for the Guises at Notre-Dame, in which he exhorted his hearers
in plain terms to let nothing deter them from the righteous act
of retribution which God and man alike demanded of them,
namely the destruction of the tyrant who had shed the blood of
the martyrs of Blois.
These harangues impelled the exasperated citizens to various
acts of lawless excess. Many, however, still hesitated to commit
themselves to an open revolt against the royal authority; and
in order to overcome such scruples, the demagogues resorted
to the Theological Faculty, in which they commanded a pre-
ponderating influence through Boucher, Prévost, Pigenat, and
other doctors attached to their faction. The Sorbonne, in reply
to this application, passed a decree to the effect that the people
were released from their oath of allegiance and obedience to
the King; and that they might with a safe conscience take
arms and raise money for the defence of the Catholic Church
against the wicked designs of the said king and his adherents,
from the moment when he violated his faith publicly pledged to
the maintenance of the Catholic religion, the Edict of Union, and
the liberty of the States of the realm.
The decree was carried after a feeble resistance from a few
more moderate divines; and was immediately transmitted to
Rome for the approval and confirmation of the Apostolic See.f.
* L'Estoile, Journal de Henri III., tom. i., p. 41. Mézerai, Hist, du Régne
tom. i. p. 379. de Henri III., tom. iii. p. 291. De
+ L’Estoile, Journal de Henri IV., | Thou, Liv, Xciv.
A.D. 1589. PRINCIPLES OF THE LEAGUE. 187
The Sorbonne now ordered the King's name to be erased from
the formularies of the Church; and the customary “Domine,
salvum fac Regem nostrum,” was replaced by petitions “pro
Principibus nostris Christianis.” ”
Such acts on the part of the illustrious Society which for three
centuries had directed the conscience and governed the ecclesi-
astical policy of France, had an electrical effect upon the nation
at large. Besides the metropolis and the Ile de France, all the
large towns in the northern provinces, the whole of Burgundy
and Champagne, the cities of Lyons and Toulouse, the greater
part of Auvergne, Limousin, and Quercy, and, in short, the entire
kingdom with the exception of a few towns on the Loire, re-
nounced their allegiance to the King, and fraternized with the
League and the Duke of Mayenne, its general-in-chief.
Paris was the centre of the rebellion. Here the Leaguers
established their executive government, the “Council General
of the Union,” which consisted at first of forty members, and
was afterwards increased to fifty-four. Of these tribunes of the
people ten belonged to the clerical Order; namely, four bishops,
Touis de Brézé of Meaux, Guillaume Rose of Senlis, Nicolas
de Villars of Agen, Aymar Hennequin of Rennes; five parish
priests of Paris, Prévost of St. Sévérin, Boucher of St. Benoît,
Aubry of St. André, Pelletier of St. Jacques, Pigenat of St.
Nicolas des Champs; and the canon of Soissons Matthieu de
Launay.
The Council assumed all the attributes of sovereignty, includ-
ing the disposal of ecclesiastical preferments in the gift of the
Crown.
The principles represented by the League were somewhat
heterogeneous and contradictory. Politically, it was demo-
cratical; religiously, it was extravagantly Ultramontane. The
Sovereignty of the people was one of its fundamental axioms.
“It is the people that makes kings,” cried the mob orators of
Paris, “and the people, when it pleases, can unmake them.”
“The crown of France is not hereditary, but elective; we obey
kings, but not tyrants.” Similar sentiments had been lately
broached in a work of some celebrity emanating from the school
directly opposite, namely the “Franco-Gallia” of the Protestant
* Contin, de Fleury, Liv, clxxviii. 83,
188 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. III.
François Hotman. In the mouth of a Calvinist they might be
natural and consistent; but they were paradoxical as coming
from Catholics, who up to this time had been devoted to the
strict monarchical theory, divine right and hereditary succes-
sion. Tyrants, the League proceeded to argue, may be lawfully
resisted; certain delinquencies on the part of the chief magis-
trate of a State entail the loss of his authority; and for such
failures he is responsible to public justice. From this doctrine
they further deduced, and not illogically, the lawfulness of
tyrannicide,-a dogma for which sufficient vindication was found
in the Scriptural example of Judith and Holofernes, and others
of like character.
These republican tendencies in politics the League combined
with an absolute subjection of body and soul to the autocracy of
Rome. The authority of the Vicar of Christ was paramount and
universal; to him it belonged to dispose at his will of all thrones
and dominions of this world; it was for him to settle all dis-
puted questions and claims of sovereignty ; and any course of
action, any enterprise, became infallibly legitimate and Safe from
the moment when it was stamped with his sanction. Hence the
League abjured the “Gallican liberties,” and everything else
that tended to circumscribe the illimitable jurisdiction of the
see of St. Peter.
It was a curious medley of two extreme currents of thought;
the one originating in the freedom of judgment asserted by the
Reformation, the other fraught with the spirit of Hildebrand,
Innocent, and Boniface,—of mediaeval theocracy.
The phenomenon may be partially explained by the fact that
the position of the two great parties in this memorable struggle
was now, by a singular turn of events, reversed. Henry III.,
finding himself forsaken and defenceless, formed a coalition
with Henry of Navarre and the Huguenots, in the hope that he
might thus confront the League with a superior force. The
Huguenots, who till now had been regarded as the party
factiously opposed to the Government, became by this step the
champions of order, legitimacy, and constitutional authority;
while the Leaguers, whose antecedents, as stanch Catholics,
were those of firm attachment to the throne, were impelled into
a course of reckless rebellion.
Yet, with all its alloy of violence and cruelty, of false ethics
A.D. 1589. . CLAUDE DE SAINTES. 189
and wild fanaticism, the League was a fight for real principles,
and, as such, had attractions for earnest and superior minds.
We must not imagine that all its partisans were mere instru-
ments of the ambition of the Guises; that their only motives
were vanity and self-interest; that they wantonly and mali-
ciously “turned faith into faction and religion into rebellion.”
Numbers there were to whom this description applied but too
truly ; but there were many of a very different stamp. There
were those who conscientiously believed that the Teague was
the only available means of obtaining reparation for the crying
acts of injustice committed by the Crown against the National
Church; there were those who thought the cause of true
religion so grievously imperilled, that all other considerations
were to be sacrificed without hesitation in its defence. Con-
templating the state of affairs from the only point of view in
which their education, their profession, and their convictions
permitted them to regard it, such men were led to concentrate
all their hopes for the salvation of France in the success of the
League. -
Among this class the first place must be assigned to Claude.
de Saintes, Bishop of Evreux. Whatever judgment we may pass
upon the conduct of this great prelate in his later years, he
must not be confounded with the herd of vulgar babblers who
sought notoriety by pandering to the passions of a ferocious
mob. Claude de Saintes was one of the most finished scholars
and theologians of the age. In early life he was protected and
advanced by the Cardinal of Lorraine, who sent him to study at
the College of Navarre. Here he gained such a high reputa-
tion that he was chosen as one of the Catholic controversialists .
at the Colloquy of Poissy, and afterwards as one of the divines
commissioned to represent the Sorbonne at the Council of
Trent. Deeply convinced of the grave errors of Protestantism,
de Saintes opposed it with all the force of a commanding
intellect and an emergetic will; and his success in combating
heresy, together with the vast learning displayed in his elaborate
treatise on the Eucharist, procured his elevation, in 1575, to
the episcopal see of Evreux. It was now that he allowed him-
self, unfortunately for his own peace, to be carried away by the
revolutionary torrent of the League. He instigated his flock to
rise in arms, and it was through his personal efforts that the
190 TEIR, GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. III.
city of Evreux and the whole diocese engaged in the rebellion.
He even sold the ancient hotel belonging to his see in the
Faubourg S. Antoine at Paris, and employed the proceeds in
promoting the cause of the insurgents.” Evreux having been
at length captured by the royal troops, the bishop fled to
Louviers, where he was arrested by order of Henry IV., and
sent prisoner to Caen, to take his trial before the parliament of
Normandy. He was convicted of having publicly applauded
the murder of Henry III., and of having intimated that his
successor might lawfully be consigned to the same fate.
Thereupon he was condemned to death; but, at the earnest
intercession of the Cardinal de Bourbon, the king commuted
the capital penalty into that of imprisonment for life. Claude,
de Saintes was now transferred to the château of Crèvecoeur
near Lisieux; and there, after a brief captivity, he breathed
his last in October, 1591. His remains were interred in the
Cathedral of Evreux.
A like example is on record in the history of Gilbert Géné-
brard, Archbishop of Aix. He was a man passionately devoted
from his youth to learned study; profoundly versed in theo-
logical lore; an exact canonist, a renowned linguist, and Pro-
fessor of Hebrew in the Collège de France. Such was his place
in the estimation of the ecclesiastical world, that when he went
to Rome, Pope Sixtus W. and the Sacred College gave him a
public reception, with marks of almost unexampled honour.
Bierre Daněs, bishop of Lavaur, the same who figured so con-
spicuously at the Council of Trent, proposed to resign his see
in favour of Génébrard; but there were obstacles which pre-
vented this arrangement. A man with such pursuits and such
a character would hardly be thought likely to precipitate him-
Self into all the turmoil and danger of a popular insurrection;
yet when the League broke out, there was no one who embraced
it with a more delirious enthusiasm than Gilbert Génébrard.
He published a treatise to prove that all persons joining in
communion or any religious rite with Henry III., after the
murder of the Cardinal de Guise, were ipso facto excom-
municate.f. He declaimed furiously at Paris against the pre-
* Gallia Christiana, tom. xi. p. 612. Walesio post Cardinalicidium assertio.
i De clericis qui participarent in —8vo., 1589.
divinis scienter et sponte cum Henrico
A.D. 1591. GENEBRARD. 191
tensions of Henry IV., and advocated the repeal of the Salic
law, with the undisguised object of procuring the advancement
of a Spanish Infanta to the throne of France. This anti-
national, unpatriotic policy he supported further by signing,
with three other divines, a letter addressed by the “Seize” to
Philip II., assuring him that all good Catholics earnestly
longed to see him wielding the French sceptre, and entreating
him, if he could not come to reign over them in person, to make
choice of a son-in-law, whom they pledged themselves to
recognize as king.” This measure was the fruit of an intrigue
by a secret knot of the most desperate among the Leaguers,
called the “Council of Ten,” who opposed themselves to the
Duke of Mayenne and the moderate party, and achieved
momentary predominance by deeds of ruthless cruelty and
bloodshed. This Council of Ten was headed by the Curé
Boucher, who for a short time became all-powerful, and was
dignified with the title of “ King of the League.”
Terrorism reigned for some weeks in Paris; but the effect of
these excesses was to strengthen the hands of Mayenne, and ere
long he succeeded in putting an end to the ascendency of the
Seize. Meanwhile Génébrard was nominated by the Council of
the Union to the archbishopric of Aix, in Provence, of which
he took possession in September, 1592. Here he passed some
years in comparative retirement, and composed one of his ablest
works, a treatise on ecclesiastical elections,i in which he
inveighed with masterly force against the pernicious usurpa-
tions of the Concordat.
From that fatal invasion of the liberties of the Gallican
Church, properly so called, the author deduces, by a regular
succession of cause and effect, the whole series of calamities
which befell the house of Valois. It is true that men of extreme
views and headstrong temper seldom find much difficulty in
making facts correspond with their foregone conclusions; but
in the present instance the chain of argument was so solid and
So powerfully sustained as to extort a general assent, even from
* Palma-Cayet, Chronologie Nove- f Liber de jure et necessitate sacra-
naire, Liv. iii. Villeroy, Mémoires rum electionum ad Ecclesiae Gallicanae
d'Estat, tom. iii. p. 17. The letter is redintegrationem. See Nicéron, Wies
dated September 10, 1591, des Hommes Illustres, tom, XXii. p. 17.
192 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. III.
sober and impartial minds. The parliament of Provence took
the alarm ; the book was denounced as a virtual attack on the
Gallican liberties, which it undoubtedly was, according to
the modern and spurious sense of that much-abused phrase;
and was condemned to be publicly burned at Aix. The tide of
reaction now ran strongly in favour of the Bourbon monarchy,
and the democratic theories of the League were renounced and
execrated on all sides. Génébrard was driven from his arch-
bishopric, and sentenced to perpetual banishment from France.
The latter punishment, however, was remitted by the clemency
of Henry IV., and he was allowed to retire to an abbey which
he possessed in Burgundy; here his death occurred shortly
afterwards, in 1596. º,
Famaticism, it appears from these and like instances, must no
be identified with ignorance. It may co-exist with a high
degree of mental cultivation; with learning, with experience,
with genuine piety. Men of the type of Claude de Saintes
and Génébrard were, after all, but fallible mortals, liable both to
moral and intellectual aberration. They were betrayed into
excesses which are altogether indefensible. Yet it must be
acknowledged that none were better qualified than they to
determine the merits of the questions in dispute; and if they
were driven into rebellion—believing in foro conscientiae that
the cause they had espoused was the cause of truth and of
God's Church—the condition of affairs, ecclesiastical and civil,
must have been desperate indeed.
The unbridled license of the popular preachers ruined the
cause of the League. The rebellion reached its climax in
January, 1593, when the States-General assembled at Paris,
under the presidency of Mayenne, to proceed to the election
of an orthodox King of France. It now became apparent that,
after four years and more of ceaseless garrulity, caballing, and
agitation of all kinds, the most hopeless dissension and per-
plexity still prevailed upon the grand question of the future
government of the country. The pretenders to the throne were
numerous;–the King of Spain and his daughter Isabella Clara
Eugenia; the Duke of Mayenne and his two younger brothers;
two princes of the House of Savoy; to say nothing of the heretic
“Béarnois,” nor of those members of his family who adhered to
A.D. 1593. . DECLINE OF THE LEAGUE. - 193
the ancient faith. Each of these claimants had his knot of
Zealous supporters in the Assembly. The moderate Leaguers,
who were disposed to come to terms with the king, had gained
ground rapidly since the suppression of the Seize, and were
strongly represented among the deputies of the Tiers Etat.
Every day the royal cause gained fresh adherents in the
capital. Reasonable men on all sides began to agree as to
the true remedy to be applied to existing evils; and to see that,
if the king could only be persuaded to declare himself a Catholic,
his success was a matter of certainty. There was still, indeed,
a strong party devoted to the interests of Spain; and it seems
not improbable that if at this juncture Philip had frankly
announced his intention to bestow the Infanta in marriage on
the young Duke of Guise, and to propose them as joint candi-
dates for the throne, the League might yet have triumphed, and
Henry IV. might never have reigned. The Spanish envoys
made a distinct proposition of this nature to the three Chambers
on the 21st of June; but it was then too late. Bishop Rose,
Boucher, and other clerical demagogues, had declared in favour
of maintaining the Salic law against all foreign pretensions;
and this seems to have had a decisive effect upon public opinion.
The friends of peace at Paris began to negociate in secret with
the Politiques of Henry's temporary court at Chartres, with a
view to arrange terms of accommodation ; and it was not long
before it became publicly known that some such project was on
foot. The plan proposed was simple; it consisted in sending a
deputation to invite or summon (Sémondre) the king tô reconcile
himself to the Catholic Church. Those who advocated this
course were styled the “sémonneux;” and upon them the fanatic
preachers now poured forth all the vials of their vindictive
Wrath. They scouted as impious all idea of pacification with
the Béarnois, even though he should abjure his heresy and con-
form to the Church. Boucher and Pelletier excommunicated
any of their parishioners who might dare to hold the slightest
intercourse, even in matters of ordinary commerce, with the
abhorred Politiques. But they stormed and raved in vain.
Instead of inspiring fear, they excited ridicule; and it was
obvious that their dominion was rapidly declining. In defiance
of the Papal legate and the Spanish ambassador, of the amathe-
mas thundered from the pulpits, and the judicial determinations
VOT, I. O
194 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCH,
CHAP. III.
of the Sorbonne * (at this time completely under Ultramontane
dictation), the three Chambers agreed to propose a conference
to the Catholics of the king's party; the offer was accepted, and
the first meeting was fixed for the 29th of April, at the village
of Suresnes. Protracted discussions now ensued (into the
details of which it is needless to enter) between the Archbishop
of Bourges, as chief commissioner for the Royalists, and the
Archbishop of Lyons on behalf of the League; and the result
was that Henry intimated his intention to seek special instruction
forthwith at the hands of the Catholic divines, allowing it to
be understood that this measure was shortly to be followed by his
public retractation of Calvinism and submission to the Church.
It was during the conferences at Suresnes that the Parliament
of Paris took the memorable step which, by counteracting the
dangerous pretensions of the Court of Spain, was the means of
Saving the independent nationality of France. On the 28th
of June, 1593, the magistrates—assembled to the number of
fifty-five presidents and councillors, voted a resolution which
declared any treaty for establishing a foreign prince or princess
on the throne to be absolutely null and void, as made in contra-
vention of the Salic law, and other fundamental laws of the
kingdom.f The Duke of Mayenne, supported by the Spaniards,
the legate, Cardinal de Pellevè, and other zealots, made a show
of resisting this arrêt, but soon found it necessary to acquiesce.
The States-General determined, almost immediately afterwards,
to adjourn indefinitely the project of electing a king—the very
purpose for which they were convoked; and thus acknowledged
that they were incompetent to direct the public councils in this
difficult emergency. These were significant proofs of a revolu-
tion in the temper of the nation, which was ere long to make
itself decisively manifest. Before separating, the States-General
of the League voted the reception “pure et simple” of the
decrees of the Council of Trent. This was done in opposition
* The Sorbonne published a decree
against the “Semonneux,” declaring
their proceedings “ seditious and im-
pious, contrary both to the canon and
civil law, opposed to the admonition of
the Pope (Clement VIII.) to the oath
of the Holy Union, and to the glory
which Paris had acquired in the eyes
of God and man.” They were, in
consequence, pronounced “bad citi-
Zens, disturbers of the public peace,
Suspected abettors of heresy, and ex-
communicate.”—L’Estoile, Journal de
Henri IV., an 1593.
f Mémoires de la Ligue, tom. v. p.
; 7. Palma-Cayet, Chromol. Novemaire,
l V. V.
A.D. 1593. THE • SATYRE MENIPPEE,” 195
to the report of a commission headed by the President Lemaître,
which specified twenty-three articles as “contrary to the laws
of the realm, the authority of the Crown, and the Gallican
liberties.”” .
The famous ‘Satyre Menippée, which was circulated in
manuscript in 1593, and published in the following year, may
be said to have given the finishing stroke to the discomfiture of
the League. Four editions of this curious work were exhausted
in four weeks. It was the joint production of six ingenious
authors;–Leroy, a canon of Rouen; Gillot, a canon of the
Sainte Chapelle at Paris; Pierre Pithou, a well-known advocate
of the Parliament; Nicolas Rapin, Florent Chrétien, and a
Protestant named Passerat. Their chief object was to throw
ridicule upon the meeting of the States-General lately summoned
by Mayenne. The principal personages who figured there are
introduced under slightly disguised names, and the harangues
of the Cardinal-Legate Gaetano, Cardinal de Pellevè, Bishop
Rose, and above all, of Aubray, the mouth-piece of the Tiers
Etat, are parodied with infinite spirit and humour; the peculiar
style of each orator being closely imitated, while at the same - -
time they are made to commit themselves with such ludicrous
simplicity, that the general effect is irresistible. Sarcasm has
ever been a weapon of peculiar potency in France; and the
‘Satyre Menippée’ contributed scarcely less to the ultimate
triumph of Henry IV. than his most brilliant achievements in
the field of battle.
Almost at the same moment Pierre Pithou, the parliamentary
advocate just named in connection with the ‘Satyre Menippée,’
published his celebrated treatise on the “Liberties of the Gal-
lican Church. In estimating the merits of this performance
we must remember that it dates from an epoch when the pas-
sions of party raged on all sides with reckless violence. The
trite proverb that “extremes reproduce each other” has never
been more notably verified than in the history of the conflict
between Ultramontanism and Gallicanism. The League, under
the pressure of a danger which seemed to threaten the very
vitals of the Church, exaggerated the powers of the Roman
Pontiff, both spiritual and temporal, to an extent which had
* Comlin. de Fleury, Liv. clxxx. 69.
196 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. III.
never been surpassed, if it had been equalled, in days when the
monarchies of Europe were comparatively feeble and insecure.
But when the League lost credit, and the Bourbons were in
the ascendant, there was a manifest temptation to exhibit the
opposite theory in stronger colours than the facts of history pre-
cisely warranted; and Gallican writers were not slow to improve
the opportunity. Pithou observes, in the dedication of his book
to Henry IV., that, amid the confusion and disorders which
overspread the kingdom, some men, through malice and ambi-
tion, calumniated — others, through ignorance and apathy,
despised—those noble rights and that precious Palladium which
had been religiously preserved by the wisest of their ancestors,
under the title of the liberties of the Gallican Church. In order
to refresh the memory of the existing generation, and to hand
down to posterity truths which he considered so invaluable, he
had undertaken to compile the present treatise; which he humbly
inscribes to the king, inasmuch as, in his capacity of “eldest
son of the Church,” and in an especial manner as patron and
protector of the Church of his own kingdom, he had the first
and principal interest in the matters therein handled.
The volume consists of a collection of traditions, precedents,
and maxims, recognised by the French law courts as their rule
of practice in all causes affecting the relations between the tem-
poral and the ecclesiastical powers. These are comprised in
eighty-three articles. They are all founded upon two general
principles, which are thus laid down in articles IV. and W.
First, the Popes have no authority in temporal concerns within
the realm of France; and, should they assume any such, the
subjects of the French Crown, including the clergy, are not
bound to pay regard to them. Secondly, although the Pope is
acknowledged to be Supreme in things spiritual, yet in France
that supremacy is not absolute or boundless, but limited by the
canons and decrees of the ancient Councils received in this
kingdom; “and it is in this,” continues Pithou, “that the liberty
of the Gallican Church primarily consists, as the University of
Paris publicly testified in opposing the reception of Cardinal
d'Amboise as papal legate.” But when he proceeds to interpret
and apply these two fundamental maxims, the author is con-
ducted to certain conclusions which, however acceptable to the
Crown, the Parliament, and other lay authorities, were never
A.D. 1594, . PIERRE PITHOU ON “GALLICAN LIBERTIES.” 197
Sanctioned by the Episcopate, and those who had a legitimate
right to speak in the name of the Church. The manifest scope
of many of Pithou’s propositions is to intrude the secular juris-
diction into the ecclesiastical sphere. This appears especially in
the articles relating to the powers of provincial Councils sum-
moned by the king, to the “regale,” to the practice of “appels
comme d'abus,” and to the right of the civil courts to give abso-
lution “ad cautelam,” under certain circumstances, from spiritual
censures. In short, the work of Pithou must be regarded as the
Parliamentary version of the Gallican liberties. For the eccle-
siastical view of them we must consult ecclesiastical authorities;
those great masters of French constitutional law who adorned
the seventeenth century—Pierre de Marca, Edmond Richer,
Louis Thomassin, Bossuet, Claude Fleury, and Ellies-Dupin.
The League, even after its decisive defeat, and the formal
submission of its leaders to the Bourbon Government, continued
to agitate the country by means of its incorrigible preachers,
and was more or less a source of disquietude throughout the
reign of Henry IV. The king, though averse to severity, was
compelled to take measures for repressing the Outrageous scur-
rilities which disgraced the pulpits; and Bishop Rose, the curés
Aubry, Cueilly, Boucher, Pelletier, and Hamilton, Filleul, prior
of the Carmelites, and some others, were deprived of their pre-
ferments and banished from Paris.” Guincestre and Pelletier
professed themselves repentant, and were pardoned. Rose was,
after a time, restored to his see, but was ungrateful enough to
commit fresh acts of disloyalty, for which the Parliament in-
flicted upon him the humiliation of a public amende. The
Jesuits, who had been foremost throughout in the rebel cause,
were denounced by the University to the Parliament, con-
demned, after a splendid display of indignant Oratory by the
advocate Antoine Arnauld,t and sentenced to banishment from
France. Two of the Order, Guignard and Guèret, were con-
victed, though it appears unjustly, of being concerned in an
attempt on the king's life; the former f was capitally punished,
the latter banished from the realm for life.
* See the list of the proscribed in 173. Palma-Cayet, Chron. Novem., Liv.
L’Estoile, Journal de Henri IV., tom. vi. *
iii. p. 40. (Petitot, tom. xlvii.) † Guignard had, no doubt, held
# Memoires de la Ligue, tom. vi. p. seditious and treasonable language,
198 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. . CHAP. III.
But the most mischievous result of the League was this ;
that, long after it was extinguished as a political faction, some
of its favourite doctrines were perpetuated by a race of contro-
versialists of no small ability and zeal, and that interminable
conflicts were thus provoked with the divines of the opposite
school, greatly to the detriment of the Church and of religion.
The transcendental theory of the Papacy as dominating over all
earthly thrones—this dominion being held to include the right
to depose delinquent princes on the score of heresy, Schism, or
other spiritual crime; the tremendous corollary that princes
thus deposed may lawfully be put to death; the necessity of
waging war to the last extremity for the destruction of heretics;
the personal infallibility of the Sovereign Pontiff in determining
matters of faith and morals;–these convictions survived the
dissolution of the League, and were continually reproduced,
especially in the writings and instructions of the Society of
Jesus. Royalist and Orthodox pens were never wanting to
refute them; and the details of this chronic warfare occupy a
considerable space in the history of the seventeenth century.
The assaults of Mariana and Martin Bécan were repulsed by
William Barclay; the great Bellarmine found a redoubtable
antagonist in Edmond Richer; the University of Louvain ful-
minated its censures against the Jesuit Lessius; Father Garasse
writhed under the scathing Satire of St. Cyran. In short, the
controversial history of France in the seventeenth century (and
it was scarcely less controversial than the age preceding) may
be characterized as that of a vigorous reaction on the one side
against the pestilent fallacies of the League, and on the other
of a struggle in defence of them, sustained—sometimes openly,
sometimes covertly, but always substantially—by the disciples
of Ignatius Loyola. -
but language of that kind was con-
stantly in the mouths of all the zealots
of the Ileague, and, moreover, it was
unfair to take note of such offences
after the act of amnesty which the
king published on entering Paris.
One of his sentiments was the follow-
ing: “Que, en l'an 1572, au jour Sainct
Barthélémy, si on eust Saigné la veine
basilique, mous me fussions tombez de
fièvre en chaud mal, comme mous ex-
perimentions.” Another was to this
effect : “Que le Déarnois, ores que
converty a la foy Catholique, seroit
traicté plus doucement qu'il ne méri-
toit si on lui donnait la couronne
monachale et quelque couvent bien
reformé, pour aller faire penitence
de tant de maux qu'il a fait à la
France, et remercier Dieu de ce qu'il
lui avoit fait la grace de se recoig-
moistre avant la mort.”—Palma-Cayet,
Chrom. Novem., Liv. vi. (Petitot, tom.
xlii. p. 384.)
A.D. 1593. . CONVERSION OF HENRY IV. 199
CEIAIPTER IV.
IT has been too generally taken for granted that the reconcilia-
tion of Henry IV. with the Church of Rome was a mere act
of political expediency—an act of violence to conscientious con-
viction. Any step of this kind, taken at a moment when it
manifestly coincides with worldly interest, inevitably excites
suspicion; and it must be confessed that the juncture at which
the King announced his conversion was ill-chosen for inspiring
belief in his sincerity. But it were hard measure to charge
him with deliberate hypocrisy; to suppose that he knelt at the
altar of St. Denis with a lie in his mouth and double-dealing in
his heart. The truth was probably this. Henry could not help
sympathizing to a great extent with the Huguenot cause ; he was
bound to it by early education, by the memory of many a
gallantly-contested field of battle, and by close ties of personal
friendship. But Protestantism as a system of doctrine was, to
Say the least, indifferent to him. In renouncing it, therefore, he
cannot be said, religiously speaking, to have violated the law of
conscience. On the contrary, it would seem that his religious
instincts attracted him strongly towards Catholicism. Palma-
Cayet tells us that he remarked to One of his domestic chaplains,
before his abjuration, “I cannot see either order or devotion in
this religion (the Reformed). It consists in nothing but a
preachment (un presche), and this only means a tongue which
can speak good French. Now, I have a notion that we ought
to believe that the Body of our Saviour is actually present in
the Sacrament; otherwise all that one does in religion is no
better than a bare ceremony.”* The same annalist mentions
that “God had long previously impressed the king's mind with
regard to the reality of the Eucharistic Presence,” and that
“the only points upon which he was still in doubt were those
* Palma-Cayet, Chromol. Novem., an 1593. (Petitot, tom. xli.)
r
200 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IV.
of the invocation of Saints, auricular confession, and the autho-
rity of the Pope.” It was accordingly on these three latter
doctrines that Henry consulted the Catholic divines at the
conference held at Mantes on the 23rd of July, 1593. The
clergy who took part in it were the Archbishop of Bourges, the
Bishops of Nantes, Le Mans, and Chartres, Duperron bishop-
designate of Evreux, and the curés of Paris Benoit, Morennes,
and Chavagnac, who, from the first, had steadily supported the
Bourbon cause in opposition to the League. The royal cate-
chumen is said to have astonished these professed theologians
by the acuteness of his questions and the ability with which he
sustained the argument. They remained in deliberation for
seven hours; at last the king said, “You have not altogether
satisfied me; but the state of the case is this : I now place my
soul in your hands; take good care how you deal with it; for
wherever you conduct me, there I shall stay till the hour of
my death, and that I most solemnly protest to you.” There
is nothing in such language that savours of levity, far less of
cant or conscious duplicity.
The sagacious Sully (himself a Protestant), who had better
opportunities than any other person of knowing the real state
of the king's mind, has recorded his belief that, while Henry
was doubtless influenced at first by political considerations, he
became persuaded in the end that the Catholic religion was the
surer way of salvation. He adds that, from the natural
ingenuousness of the king's character, he would ill have sup-
ported, had the case been otherwise, such a disguise of his true
sentiments for the rest of his life.
Henry made his public abjuration of Calvinism in the Abbey
Church of St. Denis on Sunday the 25th of July, 1593; and
was thereupon absolved provisionally (ad cautelam) and re-
stored to the communion of the Church, by the Archbishop of
Bourges. But although this event gave him at once a prestige
and a vantage ground which nothing else could have procured,
he found himself still surrounded by manifold embarrassments.
The Pope's Legate declared the proceedings at St. Denis null
and void, inasmuch as the French prelates had acted without
* L’Estoile, Journal de Henri IV.
† Sully, Economies Royales, tom. i. p. 483, Paris, 1822.
A.D. 1594. BOUCHER'S SERMONS AT ST. MERRY. 201
authority from Rome. Clement VIII. spoke of the king's
conversion in terms of bitter contumely : “I would not
believe Navarre to be a Catholic,” said he to the Duke of
Nevers, “unless an angel should come down from heaven and
whisper it in my ear. As for the Catholics of his party, they
are disloyal to religion and to the Crown; they are but the
bastards of the bondmaid; the Leaguers are the legitimate
children, the true pillars and buttresses of the Catholic reli-
gion.” The Court of Rome showed extreme reluctance to
grant the absolution which was humbly craved on behalf of
Henry by his envoys; and the protracted delays in this affair
were seriously injurious, since a plausible justification was thus
given to the continued enmity of the King of Spain and the
famatics of the League. Upon this pretext the king's life was
twice attempted by assassins. The deed was openly defended
on the ground that he was no true member of the Church, and
not recognised by the Pope; consequently his murder was a
lawful and a meritorious act.f
Of the rancorous hatred borne to Henry by the fanatical
priesthood, even after his restoration to Catholic communion,
we have a curious proof in the series of nine sermons “Sur la
simulée conversion de Henri de Bourbon,” preached by Jean
Boucher in the Church of St. Merry. -
These were published with the official approbation of the
Sorbonne, in which it is stated that, “besides being grave and
learned, they contain a wholesome doctrine, and an able expo-
sure of false Catholicism and impious “Politicism,’ and thus
confirm in a wonderful manner the wavering faith of numbers
of Catholics in these unhappy times.” The discourses abound
with the foulest and most malignant abuse, intermixed with
passages of considerable eloquence, and with a certain display
of erudition. The main object of the preacher is to establish,
from every possible point of view, the illegality and invalidity
of the absolution pronounced by the Archbishop of Bourges.
Collaterally he embraces a wide range of topics; he defends
the principle of insurrection; asserts the plenary power of the
Estates of the realm to regulate the succession to the throne
* Palma-Cayet, Chronolog. Novem., against Henry's person are mentioned
Liv. v. p. 49. (Petitot, tom. xlii.) by the contemporary Writers,
f Several other acts of violence
202 THE GALLICAN CEIUIRCH. CHAP. IV.
and the form of government; identifies the action of the
League with that of the Church; exalts the Pope to an abso-
lute supremacy, not only in spirituals but indirectly in tem-
porals also ; and combines an extravagant advocacy of the
rights of the people with maxims of religious intolerance
involving the duty of active persecution.
A reply to Boucher's Sermons was published by Claude
d’Angennes, Bishop of Le Mans; in which he proved, by
copious references to ecclesiastical canons and tradition, that
the power of absolution in cases of heresy has been reserved in
all ages to the bishops, independently of the See of Rome.
It was a special object with the Roman curia that Henry
should solicit, not only absolution, but “rehabilitation,” that is,
the restitution of his rights as a temporal sovereign; which, of
course, would have implied the admission that the Pope had
power to deprive him of those rights, and restore them when he
thought proper. This point the French commissioners, Car-
dinal d’Ossat and Du Perron, positively declined to concede.
Clement insisted on it with great pertinacity, but, at length,
found it necessary to yield, and ended by waiving it. It was
represented to him that if he showed himself obdurate and
intractable, Henry of Bourbon might lose patience, and France
might be provoked to withdraw altogether from the obedience
of Rome, after the melancholy example of England. It appears,
indeed, that Henry had already been urged by some of his
ablest counsellors to establish the Gallican Church upon the
footing of national independence, under the presidency of a
patriarch, nominated by himself. These and other con-
siderations induced the Pope to take a more reasonable tone;
and, after some further discussion, the conditions of the Abso-
lution were finally arranged. They were as follows:—That the
Catholic religion and worship should be re-established in
Béarn, and other localities where it had been suppressed since
the year 1585. That all ecclesiastical benefices and property
which had been conferred upon heretics, laymen, and other
disqualified persons, should be restored to the Orthodox clergy.
That the young Prince of Condé (at that time heir-presumptive
to the throne, the king having no legitimate children) should
be educated in the Catholic faith. That the king should give
the preference to Catholics in the distribution of public offices
A.D. 1595. CEREMONY OF HENRY'S ABSOLUTION. 203
and dignities, and should let it be plainly seen that he desired
the true Church to be dominant throughout the kingdom.
That the decrees of the Council of Trent, as well of discipline
as of doctrine, should be received and executed in France. To
this latter stipulation the French ambassadors annexed a
noticeable modifying clause;—“ with the exception of any
article which could not be executed without causing disturbance
£n the kingdom.” -
|Henry further promised, by way of “works of satisfaction,”
to hear mass regularly every day, and recite certain spocified
prayers; to approach the Sacraments of penance and the Eucharist
at least four times a year; and to establish convents and nun-
neries in different parts of the kingdom.” According to Sully's
account, it was moreover Secretly covenanted that the banished
Jesuits should be recalled to France.
All preliminaries being adjusted, the ceremony of the abso-
lution took place with great parade and solemnity on the 17th
of September, 1595. The Pope seated himself on a throne raised
on a lofty platform in front of St. Peter's, the doors of the
cathedral being closed. Henry's representatives Cardinal d’Ossat
and Du Perron, Bishop of Evreux, prostrated themselves at the
feet of the Holy Father, and in the name of their Sovereign ab-
jured all heresy, swore upon the Gospels to maintain the true
faith inviolate, accepted the above-named conditions of peniten-
tial discipline, and promised the same submission and obedience
to the Sovereign Pontiff that had always been paid by the Most
Christian kings.
The choir then intoned the Miserere; and during the per-
formance the Pope administered to the kneeling prelates a gentle
symbolical chastisement with a slender staff. At its conclusion
he pronounced the impressive words of absolution in due form;
whereupon the great multitude who thronged the square of St.
Peter's rent the air with acclamations. The Pope, turning to
the French envoys, charged them to tell their master that,
since he was now re-admitted into the fold of the Church Mili-
tant, it remained for him to merit, by soundness of faith and
fruitfulness in good works, a glorious entrance hereafter into
the Church triumphant.t
* De Thou, Liv. II.3. Contin. de f Palma-Cayet, Chron. Noven, Liv.
Fleury, Liv, clxxxi, 37. vii. (Petitot, tom. xliii.) -
204, THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP, TV,
This authoritative recognition of Henry of Bourbon as the
“eldest son of the Church " deprived the Leaguers, the “Tiers-
parti,” and all other malcontents among the Catholics, of every
conceivable pretext for further disturbing the peace of France.
They accordingly laid down their arms, and signified their ad-
hesion to the king's government, on all sides; and within four
months after the absolution at Rome, the definitive treaty was
signed with the Duke of Mayenne at Folembrai, which formally
put an end to the existence of the League.
But with the Huguenots Henry had much more difficulty.
They continued to show themselves sullen, jealous, factious,
unreasonable. Their leaders—Rohan, Bouillon, La Tremoille,_
had abandoned the court, and were agitating in various parts
of the country for a renewal of the civil war. In some of the
most critical emergencies of the struggle with Spain—such for
instance as the siege of La Fère and the capture of Amiens—
the Protestants remained stubbornly deaf to the appeals of
their sovereign for assistance; indeed his moments of embar-
rassment and distress were precisely those which they chose for
worrying him with fresh demands and exorbitant pretensions.
No sooner was it known that Henry had opened negociations
for peace with the King of Spain, than the Huguenot synod
appointed delegates to proceed forthwith to England and Hol-
land, for the purpose of intriguing with Elizabeth and the
Prince of Orange to defeat the proposed treaty. Such conduct
was the more unjustifiable, inasmuch as the Reformers had in
reality, very little to complain of at this period. The edict of
1577, which was legally in full force, secured to them substan-
tial toleration, and even a considerable share of political power;
and if that edict was not always perfectly observed, the cause lay,
for the most part, in the violent proceedings of the Huguenots
themselves in those districts where their creed predominated,
and in the general distrust which they inspired as dangerous
revolutionary agitators.
Further concessions, however, were indispensable under the
pressure of existing circumstances. In March, 1597, Henry
appointed as his commissioners Count Gaspard de Schomberg,
the historian Jacques Auguste de Thou (one of the Presidents
of the Parliament of Paris), and the Councillors of State De
Vic and Calignon; who immediately proceeded to treat for a
A.D. 1598. - THE EDICT OF NANTES. 205
final settlement with the Protestant Assembly sitting at Loudun.
Several months elapsed before a satisfactory understanding could
be arrived at ; and it was not till the 15th of April, 1598, that
Henry was enabled to put the seal to this great work of national
pacification by publishing the Edict of Nantes.
The preamble to this most important document, the Magna
Charta of Protestant liberty in France, specifies, curiously
enough, as the royal motive for issuing it, the necessity of
completely and securely re-establishing the Catholic religion
in those localities where it had been abolished during the last
troubles; viz., Béarn, La Rochelle, Nismes, Montauban, &c.
“Now that it had pleased God to grant repose to the kingdom
from the destructions of civil war, the king felt it his duty
to make provision for the public worship and service of God
among all classes of his subjects; and if it was impossible at
present that all could be brought to agree in one and the same
external form of Worship, at all events there might be uni-
formity of spirit and purpose; and such regulations might be
adopted as should obviate all danger of public disturbance or
collision. Accordingly he had determined to enact and pro-
mulgate a law upon this subject—universal, distinct, positive,
and absolute—a perpetual and irrevocable edict, and he prayed
God that his subjects might be led to accept it, as the surest
guarantee of their union and tranquillity, and of the re-estab-
lishment of the French empire in its ancient power and
splendour.” -
Then follow the enacting clauses, comprised in ninety-two
articles. Those who professed the “so-called Reformed Reli-
gion” were to enjoy henceforth full and complete liberty of
conscience, and the free exercise of their public worship through-
out the realm of France, though not without certain restrictions.
All seigneurs possessing the right of “haute justice” might
assemble for worship with their families, their tenants, and any
others whom they chose to invite; land-owners of a lower grade
were not to hold meetings consisting of more than thirty persons.
Huguenots were to be freely admitted to all colleges, schools,
and hospitals; they might found, endow, and maintain, educa-
tional and charitable institutions; and their religious books
might be published in all places where their worship was
authorized. They were to be eligible to all public employments
206 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IV,
on equal terms with Catholics, and on accepting office were not
to be bound to take any oaths, or attend any ceremonies repul-
sive to their conscience. A new court, called the “Chambre de
I’Edit,” was instituted in the Parliament of Paris, composed of
a president and sixteen councillors, of whom one, or two at the
most, were to be Protestants. Other similar courts were estab-
lished in Guienne, Languedoc, and Dauphiné. These were to
take cognizance of all cases arising between Protestants and
Catholics.
Besides the privilege granted to the holders of fiefs, the
Reformed worship was legalised in one town or village in every
bailliage throughout France. In certain specified places, how-
ever, it was altogether prohibited ; at the court, or residence of
the sovereign for the time being ; at Paris, and within a radius
of five leagues round the capital; and in all military camps,
with the exception of the personal quarters of a Protestant
general. It was also excluded from Reims, Dijon, Soissons,
Beauvais, Sens, Nantes, Joinville, and other towns, in virtue
of separate arrangements made by Henry with the local
nobles. The Huguenots were enjoined to show outward respect
to the Catholic religion, to observe its holy-days, and to pay
tithes to its clergy. They were to desist from all political
negociations and cabals, both within and beyond the realm ;
their provincial assemblies were to be forthwith dissolved; and
the king engaged to license the holding of a representative
synod once in three years, with the privilege of addressing the
Crown on the condition of the Reformed body, and petitioning
for redress of grievances.
There were, in addition, fifty Secret articles, which did not
appear on the face of the edict. By one of these the king con-
firmed the Huguenots in possession (for eight years) of all the
cautionary towns which had been granted to them by the treaty
1577. Several of these were places of considerable strength
and importance; including La Rochelle, Montauban, Nismes,
Montpellier, Grenoble, Lectoure, Niort, &c. The expense of
maintaining the Huguenot garrisons was to be defrayed by a
royal grant of 80,000 crowns per annum.
That the Edict of Nantes should have excited keen dissatis-
faction and determined opposition among the Catholic subjects
of Henry, is, of course, no matter of surprise, The prelates,
A.D. 1599. THE EDICT OF NANTES. 207
the clergy, the University, and the parliaments both of Paris
and the provinces, remonstrated against it in the most energetic
and unmeasured language ; and it required all the authority,
resolution, judgment, and eloquence of Henry, together with
the support of his most enlightened counsellors, to bring the
affair to a successful conclusion. The Parliament of Paris per-
sisting in its refusal to register the edict, the magistrates were
summoned to the Louvre, where the king addressed them in an
admirable speech, full of mingled dignity, pathos, and cogent
reasoning, not without occasional touches of menace and reproach.
This, it may be hoped, produced conviction; at any rate it was
followed by speedy compliance. The edict was registered, and
thus became part of the statute law of France, on the 25th of
February, 1599.
There can be no question that, in publishing the Edict of
Nantes, Henry IV. was actuated to a great extent by anxiety
to secure to his Huguenot subjects the blessings of a real, effec-
tual, and permanent toleration. But at the same time it is
certain that this was not his only motive in taking that step.
His views of policy were broader, more comprehensive, more
truly statesmanlike. He knew that Protestantism in France
was a struggle even more for political, than for religious,
power and predominance; and his grand object was to bring
the contest to an end, by depriving the Reformers of every
reasonable pretext for disaffection. If they were once content
as to their civil pretensions, he was convinced that they would
be comparatively harmless as a sect of dissenters from the
established creed.
So long as they were persecuted, so long as they were bur-
dened by vexatious disabilities, and separated by invidious dis-
tinctions from the mass of their fellow-citizens; so long had
the Huguenots steadily increased and multiplied, until their
existence had become a standing and most serious peril to the
tranquillity of France. Henry's plan was to reduce them to
submission, loyalty, and insignificance, simply by giving them
nothing to complain of. He had witnessed the wretched results
of bigotry, tyranny, unjust legislation, sectarian rancour and
hatred; and he was resolved, now that he had the opportunity,
to try the effects of an opposite system—of charity, equity,
forbearance, and impartial respect for the rights of conscience.
208 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IV.
In taking this course, the king believed that he was consulting
the true interests of the French monarchy, of Society at large,
and of the Catholic Church itself.
He was quite prepared, however, to find the proposed measure
vehemently censured and resisted in certain quarters, and espe-
cially by the Court of Rome.
In his communications with the Pope at this period he took
especial pains to justify himself beforehand for a measure which
must naturally appear so suspicious in the eyes of the Holy
Father, and to dispel the apprehensions excited by it. “If I
am compelled,” he writes in March, 1598, “to make greater
concessions to the Huguenots than those of the edict of 1577,
let his Holiness be assured that I do it solely for the purpose
of avoiding a more serious evil, and with a view to protect and
strengthen the Catholic Church to a corresponding extent;
that I do it to appease and satisfy the so-called Reformers, and
by that means to defeat the more easily the designs of the
ambitious and factious among them, who are doing their utmost
to make the rest despair of my protection, and to stir them
up against the Catholics who still live in great numbers in the
towns which they occupy, and from which they would already
have expelled them by force if I had not interfered.” "
Again, a few weeks after the publication of the edict;-“I
have well considered what his Holiness has said to you f with
reference to the edict which I have issued in order to restore
peace to my kingdom; and I trust that time will convince him
that the assurances you have given of my real intentions are
more to be relied on than the reports which he has heard from
others to my disadvantage.” And some months later he writes
to the Pope himself:-“I shall take care so to manage the
edict which I have published for the tranquillity of my king-
dom, that its most important and most solid results shall be in
favour of the Catholic religion; and this indeed is already be-
ginning to appear.”f
These anticipations were remarkably fulfilled. Within a
year after the appearance of the edict we find Henry congra-
tulating himself on having recovered the confidence of the
Sovereign Pontiff, with regard to his designs “for the glory of
* Lettres Missives de Henri IV., vol. iv., p. 921. f Cardinal de Joyeuse.
| Lettres Missives, Nov. 1599.
A.D. 1599. REVIVAL OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. 209
God, and the restoration of his Church.” The wisdom of histole-
rant policy had quickly become manifest, not only by the entire
cessation of civil strife, but by an extraordinary revival of zeal
and vigour which sprung up internally in the French Church,
and by a no less wonderful reaction towards Catholicism pro-
ceeding simultaneously among the Huguenots themselves. No
sooner did the sectaries find themselves fully protected by the
law, and admitted to the free enjoyment of all the rights belong-
ing to French citizens, than their religious bigotry began sensibly
to abate. Their prejudices gradually melted away before the
fervid exhortations, the unwearied energy, the acute and weighty
reasonings, of the Catholic clergy and missionaries; and the
result was seen in a long series of memorable conversions. In
short, if Henry IV. had needed any justification of his indul-
gence to the Protestants in granting them the Edict of Nantes,
he had only to point to the prosperous aspect of the Church,
and the general strengthening of the Catholic interest through-
out France. The ambassador d’Halincourt, on proceeding
to Rome in 1605, was instructed to call the special atten-
tion of the Pope to this encouraging fact. “The Catholic
religion, fostered as it is by the authority and solicitude of his
Majesty, is visibly regaining its ancient strength and splendour.
It is notorious to all men that it has made greater progress
during the six or seven years since the re-establishment of
peace, by the wise measures taken by his Majesty, than it ever
did during the wars of the late kings Charles and Henry;
France having discovered, to her cost, that the evils arising
from diversity of religious opinions, when they have taken deep
root in a nation; are to be assuaged rather by gentleness and
moderation than by harshness and violence.”
The Edict of Nantes, then, must not be regarded merely as
an act of arbitrary indulgence to the Calvinists; it must not
be separated from the general scheme of Henry's far-sighted
and well-balanced policy. The grant of religious freedom to the
Protestants formed part, but only a part, of that which was the
paramount object and work of Henry's reign—the restoration
of peace, Security, unity,+Social, political, and ecclesiastical,—
to France. His peculiar antecedents enabled him to pursue a
path which to his predecessors had been impracticable ; to
maintain a powerful State Establishment without violating the
WOL. I. * P
210 - THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP, IW.
rights and liberties of dissentient sects; to protect the Church
without irritating or oppressing the Nonconformists. In no
other way could he have stanched the bleeding wounds of his
country; nor could any one have accomplished it but himself.
Neither of the two rival camps of the “wars of religion,” had
its councils exclusively prevailed, could have saved France
from ruin. The Leaguers were in arms against their lawful
sovereign; the Huguenots, apostates from the ancient faith,
were offensive to the religious instincts of the great mass of
the nation. But Henry, when once he had become a Catholic
prince, the “eldest son of the Church,” combined in himself
all the required elements of mediation and reunion. He anni-
hilated the League by satisfying the very principle for which
the League had been all along professedly contending; he
silenced the Huguenots by redressing their grievances, and
raising them to a degree of political importance of which their
most sanguine partisans had scarcely dreamed.
With regard to his external and international relations, Henry
availed himself in like manner, and with equal success, of these
happy circumstances of his position. Only a few weeks after
issuing the Edict of Nantes, he signed the scarcely less important
Peace of Wervins with the Spanish branch of the House of Austria.
Spain and the Empire had hitherto been regarded as the main
bulwarks of Catholicism in Europe; and so long as France was
distracted and enfeebled by the wars of the League, their pre-
dominance was indisputable. But, under the skilful guidance
of Henry IV., France speedily recovered her just influence.
Not only did he conclude an advantageous peace with Spain, but
he contrived, with admirable tact, to attach to himself and to
France all the principal States which were adverse to the
Spanish and Austrian interest; and the confederacy thus
formed was so powerful as to make him virtually the arbiter
of Europe.
The Holy See acknowledged him as its most strenuous
defender. He charmed the minor powers of Italy with the
dazzling prospect of Italian unity and independence. He
maintained a confidential correspondence with Maurice of
Hesse and other Lutheran princes of Germany. He negociated
on terms of friendship with Elizabeth and James I. of England.
Above all, he entered into a treaty of strict alliance with the
A.D. 1600. REVIVAL OF THE CATHOLIC RELIGION. 211
United Provinces of Holland; he upheld their cause with un-
flagging zeal and ability through a long labyrinth of tedious
negociations; and it was in no small degree owing to him that
they triumphed in the end, by the formal recognition of their
independence in the treaty of April, 1609.
Thus auspiciously did the seventeenth century dawn for the
interests of France. After the destructive tempests of the civil
wars, the nation began to revive and to breathe freely ; and men
of all parties joined in heartfelt aspirations for the blessings of
settled peace, social Order, and legitimate government. Even
the most thoughtless of that generation had learned lessons
amid the calamities of their youth which brought forth whole-
some fruit in their maturer years. The conciliatory spirit and
patriotic example of Henry IV. won by degrees a widespread
sympathy throughout the nation. His clemency rebuked the
fierceness of religious partisanship; his long experience, his
remarkable success, the sincerity of his character, were appre-
ciated even by those who had opposed him the most bitterly,
and influenced public opinion in a thousand ways. - -
In all directions Religion was now invoked as the true source
and most certain pledge of tranquillity and happiness, public and
private. During the first quarter of the seventeenth century
France was thoroughly penetrated by the spirit of religious
enterprise. The mere catalogue of public institutions of different
kinds which originated in this memorable movement is long
enough to fill several printed pages; men of all ranks and
professions vied with each other in forming associations for
various purposes of beneficent exertion, spiritual and temporal.
Colleges, schools, hospitals, missions at home and abroad, con-
gregations for the systematic training of the clergy, diocesan
Seminaries, the reformation of many monastic Orders and con-
ventual houses—societies devoted to the education of the young,
to the relief of the poor, to the support and consolation of the
aged, to the visitation of prisoners, to the redemption of captives
—such are some of the characteristic undertakings of the times
We are about to contemplate.
212 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
C EIA PT E R. W.
THE “Wars of religion” had left the Church of France in a state
of miserable depression and disorder. From an official report made
to the King by the Assembly of the clergy in 1595,” we learn
that at that time three-fourths of the parochial churches were
unprovided with legitimate pastors. Out of fourteen archiepis-
copal sees, six or seven were without occupants; from thirty to
forty bishoprics were vacant out of a total of about a hundred;
and several of the existing prelates had been elected uncanoni-
cally and by discreditable means. With regard to abbeys, the
destitution was still worse; in twenty-five dioceses there were
one hundred and twenty conventual houses without qualified
superiors. “These foundations,” said the Bishop of Le Mans,
who spoke on this occasion on behalf of the clergy, “are
managed as to temporal matters (the spiritual administration
is scarcely thought of at all), by certain laymen, who appropriate
the revenues dedicated by the founders to the service of God,
and enjoy them under the name of some hireling substitute.
The spiritual rule and government of these houses, which is a
matter of Divine right, and for which persons of the highest
merit for piety and learning ought to be chosen, is sold for hard
cash, bestowed as a marriage portion, bartered for worldly goods,
and this openly, with the knowledge of your Majesty and your
Council. The fold being thus deprived of true shepherds, the
sheep are scattered abroad, and the ravening wolf, finding none
to oppose him, preys upon them at his will. The sins thereby
committed draw down upon us the wrath of God, and make the
service of His Church offensive to Him.” The bishop proceeded
to entreat the king to restore to the Church the right of free
election; and to authorise the publication of the bulls of Pius W.
and Sixtus W. against “confidences.” f “Such elections would
* Proceſs - verbawa, des Assembl. dw f A “confidence" is a contract by
Clergé de France, tom. i. p. 576. Palma- which an ecclesiastic receives a benefice
Cayet, Chronol. Noven, Liv. vii. on condition of paying the emoluments,
N
A.D. 1595. CORRUPTIONS OF THE CHURCH. 213
fill our ranks with learned divines, faithful pastors, and able
rulers, who would raise the Church in this realm into a flourishing
condition; while the constitutions we refer to, if published and
executed, would remove the curse that now lies upon us by
reason of the crying sin of simony.” The clergy complain
further, that the civil power had lately made bold encroachments
on the spiritual; the Grand Conseil having taken upon itself
to grant to its own nominees ecclesiastical preferment of all
kinds, even the highest ; and to such a scandalous extent
had this been carried, that children, mere schoolboys, were
placed in the position of spiritual heads and governors of
religious houses. The Council had also presumed to grant
dispensations of marriage, licences for plurality of benefices,
and absolutions for canonical irregularities—matters belonging
exclusively to the jurisdiction of the Sovereign Pontiff. In
conclusion, they express their hope that, as his Majesty naturally
desired that those things which are Caesar's should be rendered
to Caesar, so he would not be less Solicitous to render to God the
things which be God's.
The king, in his reply, promised to do his utmost to remedy
the abuses and corruptions specified; and in particular, he
declared that vacancies in the episcopate should henceforth
be filled by persons competent to preach, and to execute all
other duties of their office. At the same time he administered
a sharp rebuke to the clergy, whose personal misconduct was, in
his Majesty's judgment, the main cause of existing evils. He
accused them of having instigated the aggressive interference of
foreign powers in France; of Scandalous maladministration
of their dioceses; of caring little for the honour of God in
comparison with their own interest, convenience, and enjoyment;
of Squandering upon mere worldly objects the revenues which
should be consecrated to the work of the Church. To such
causes, he said, he attributed the rise and growth of religious
dissension in the kingdom; and if the clergy desired to see a
return to unity and concord, they must undertake in good
earnest their own part in the work of general reformation. It
or a part of them, to a third person; or fidentiaire.” The engagement is simon-
covenants to resign the preferment at a iacal, Iléricourt, Lois Eccles, de France,
specified time. The person holding a | F. chap. XX. 28, 29. Mémoires du
benefice on such terms is called a “con- || Clergé de France, tom, viii. p. 8.
214 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
was the first and indispensable condition of improvement that
they should set an edifying example to the people by word and
deed. This was the true method to appease the wrath of God,
to secure success in public affairs, and to make converts to the
Catholic religion. If he could once see the ecclesiastical body
thoroughly reformed, he would engage to bring back the
Huguenots to the bosom of the Church.”
Very similar representations were made by the clerical
Assemblies of 1598, 1600, 1602, and 1605. On the latter
occasion, in addition to the usual denunciations of Simony,
uncanonical elections, and mismanagement of Church property,
the clergy urgently petitioned for the publication of the Council
of Trent. They reminded the king that the same desire had
been repeatedly expressed before, both by General Assemblies
and by provincial Councils. It was grievous that France, which
had for its sovereign the “eldest son of the Church,” should
have the appearance of being schismatic, and disobedient to
injunctions so Sacred, to decrees enacted so unquestionably
under the guidance of the Divine Spirit. How long were
human reasonings to prevail in opposition to the behests of
Heaven How long was the Sacred to give way to the secular,
the will of God to the cavillings of man? If there was anything
in the Tridentine statutes that seemed inconsistent with the
legislation of France, it was, in fact, of So Small importance,
that in a single conference between the bishops, the Council of
State, and the Parliament, they would engage that perfect satis-
faction should be given to his Majesty on that head.
In answer to this harangue, the King fully admitted the
magnitude of the evils under which the Church still laboured;
and, with respect to the Council of Trent, assured the clergy
that he was as anxious as they themselves could be to see it duly
promulgated. “But, as you remind me very truly,” said Henry,
taking a somewhat unfair advantage of an expression which had
fallen from the Archbishop of Vienne, “considerations of tem-
poral policy sometimes come into collision with the dictates of
heavenly wisdom.” At the same time he promised that no
effort should be spared on his part to promote the efficiency
of the Church and the triumph of true religion; and he took
* Procé8-verbauz des Assemb, du Clerge, tom. i. p. 584,
A.D. 1600. DILAPIDATION OF ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS. 215
the prelates present to witness that he had never bestowed
preferment on any but well-qualified persons. This course had
already produced a considerable change for the better, and by
adhering to it a still further improvement might be expected for
the future. As to the simoniacal practices complained of, it was
for those among the clergy who felt themselves justly chargeable
with such offences to make Voluntary reparation by resigning
forth with the preferments thus unlawfully acquired;—an example
which would demonstrate their sincerity as Church reformers,
and which could not fail to have a powerful effect upon the
minds of the laity.”
The dilapidated and ruinous condition of ecclesiastical build-
ings was another pitiable feature of the Church of France at
this epoch. The ‘Gallia Christiana’ enumerates upwards of
150 cathedral and abbey churches which had been demolished
by the JHuguenots. This list does not include the parochial
churches ravaged by the sectaries in places captured by their
troops, such as Orleans, Soissons, Auxerre, Montpellier, Nismes,
Montauban, Castres, and others. In the district of Beauce
three hundred churches were destroyed: five hundred shared
the same fate in the dioceses of Uzès, Viviers, Nismes, and
Mende. Fearful profanations and devastations were committed
in the cities of Perigueux, Lodève, Foix, La Charité, and
especially at Orleans, where not a single Catholic church was
left standing. In short, wherever the Calvinists had the upper
hand, the Sanctuaries of the Church, and conventual houses of
all kinds, were sacrificed without mercy to their furious passions.
No Sooner was peace restored, than the bishops and clergy,
zealously seconded by the faithful of all classes, applied them-
Selves to the vast task of rebuilding these sacred edifices
throughout the land. Henry IV. and his Queen laid the first stone
of the new cathedral of Sainte Croix at Orleans on the 17th
of April, 1601; and promised a princely contribution towards
the completion of the work for ten years following. During the
first decade of the century two other churches were built at
Orleans; six at Paris, including those belonging to the convents
of the Recollets, the Carmelites, and the Feuillans; the much-
* jºire du Clergé, tom. vii. p. 116. Proces-verbawa, des Assembl., tom. i.
p. 7 0, -
216 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
admired Church of Notre-Dame de Cléry, in the Orleanois;
and several founded in different parts of the country under the
auspices of the Jesuits after their re-establishment in France.*
These were placed in the towns where the Order had its
principal houses, such as La Flèche, Moulins, Rennes, Poitiers,
Amiens, and Caen. That at La Flèche is a structure of
remarkable beauty.
The conversion of the sovereign to Catholicism naturally
formed a prelude to a considerable movement in the same
direction among the Huguenots, particularly those of the
higher and better educated classes. During the reign of Henry
IV. this was the principal field in which the Gallican clergy
exhibited their zeal; and their success was such as to produce
a marked effect upon the general tone and spirit of society with
regard to religion. In connexion with this important feature
of the time it will be suitable to place before the reader some
account of the character and labours of Cardinal Du Perron.
Jacques Davy du Perron belonged to a family of good
repute in Lower Normandy. His parents, having embraced
the “new doctrine,” emigrated into Switzerland to avoid
molestation on account of their belief; and it was in the
Canton of Berne that the future prelate and cardinal first saw
the light, on the 25th of November, 1556. The earliest reli-
gious notions instilled into him were, of course, those of the
Reformers; his father, a man of superior acquirements, directed
his education up to the age of ten years. The lad discovered
extraordinary capacity, and an insatiable love of learning. He
devoted himself to study, and in the course of a few years made
surprising progress in various branches of knowledge—in the
classical languages, in mathematics, logic, philosophy, and
natural sciences. The family returned to France on the paci-
fication with the Huguenots in 1576; and, not long afterwards,
the mind of young Du Perron became unsettled with respect
to certain articles of the Calvinist creed. It is said that his
doubts were first suggested by reading a treatise “On the
Church,” written by the well-known Duplessis-Mornay in
defence of Protestantism. With characteristic zeal he at once
* Legrain, Decade de H. le Grand, Liv. viii. Quoted by Poirson, Hist, du
Régne de Henri IV., tom. iv. p. 514.
A.D. 1600. DU PERRON. - 217
entered on an investigation of the whole controversy between
Rome and Geneva. The works of the Fathers and Schoolmen
— particularly those of Augustine and Thomas Aquinas–
gradually opened his eyes to the hollowness of the system in
which he had been nurtured ; and his researches left him
profoundly convinced of the truth and authority of the Catholic
religion, Du Perron lost no time in abjuring the heresy of
Calvin ; and, having resolved to embrace the ecclesiastical
profession, he received holy orders in 1577. Immediately
afterwards he was appointed reader to Henry III. ; and,
after the assassination of that monarch, he obtained a place
in the household of the Cardinal of Bourbon, whom the
League dignified with the empty title of King. But in
1591 he attached himself to the cause of Henry IV. ; who
quickly recognized his talents, and raised him in due time
to the highest stations in the Church. Du Perron now devoted
his vast stores of learning, and his remarkable argumentative
powers, to the work of converting the Huguenots to the true
faith. His labours were richly rewarded, and he became, per-
haps, the most successful agent in the great revival of religion
which distinguished this epoch in France.*
In December, 1593, Du Perron sustained a controversial
discussion with some Protestant ministers at Mantes, by the
special permission of the king, and under conditions prescribed
by him. With one of them named Rotan, a man highly
esteemed by his co-religionists, he debated the question,
“whether Holy Scripture is sufficient to salvation;” and we
learn from L'Estoile that, after arguing for several hours, the
Huguenot divine had the manliness and candour to confess
himself vanquished. The next day François Becault, another
eminent minister, experienced a like defeat.
Shortly after Henry's reconciliation to the Church, Du Perron,
to whose influence that step was in great measure due, was
nominated to the see of Evreux, in succession to Claude
de Saintes. The king now despatched him as special envoy
to Rome, where we have already seen him taking a principal
part in the negociations which ended in his master's recognition
by the Papal Court. During his stay at Rome he was con-
* Bonav. Racine, Hist, Eccles, tom. x. p. 314 et seqq.
218 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. . CHAP. W.
secrated Bishop of Eyreux by Cardinal de Joyeuse, Archbishop
of Rouen, on the 27th December, 1595. Returning to France,
he renewed his public disputations with the Calvinists—
an arena in which he never failed to figure to advantage.
A long list of conversions attested his prowess. Among his
conquests were Pierre Palma-Cayet, author of the ‘Chronologie
Novenaire;’ Nicolas Harlai de Sancy, a confidential friend of
Henry IV. ; and Spondanus, or De Sponde, afterwards Bishop
of Pamiers, the continuator of the Annals of Baronius. But it
was in his famous conference with Duplessis-Mornay, in the
year 1600, that the genius of Du Perron achieved its most
brilliant triumph. Some detailed account of this occurrence,
which at the time created an immense Sensation, will doubtless
be acceptable to the reader.
Duplessis-Mornay, at this time Governor of Saumur, was no
less eminent for his zeal in defence of the doctrines of the
Reformation than for his ability as a politician and diplo-
matist. His authority with his co-religionists was such that he
was commonly styled “the Huguenot Pope.” He had lately
published a book entitled “L’Institution de l'Eucharistie,” in
which he undertook to prove that the Calvinist view of that
Sacrament is supported by the unanimous testimony of all
Christian ages. It possessed considerable merit, both in point
of style and learning; but the writer had unfortunately taken
upon trust the quotations from the Fathers furnished to him by
the Huguenot ministers, without troubling himself to verify
them by personal research. These quotations were to a great
extent garbled, mutilated, and perverted from their real
meaning; and the result upon Mornay's line of argument may
be easily imagined. The truth was speedily detected by the
orthodox divines, among others by the Bishop of Evreux. The
book had been sent to him by Sully, whose party had taught
him to regard it as a masterpiece ; and great must have been
his surprise on learning from the prelate that it was full of
errors from beginning to end. “Not,” said Du Perron, “that
I wish to charge M. Duplessis with intentional bad faith; but I
regret that he has been so unfortunate as to rely upon the
* “De l'institution, usage, et doc- par quels degrez la Messe s'est in-
trine de l’Eucharistie en l'Eglise An- troduite en sa place.”—Salmur. MDCIv.
cienne; ensemble quand, comment, et | 4to.
A.D. 1600. DU PERRON AND DUPLESSIS-MORNAY. 219
romances of mere compilers, who have treated him extremely
ill.”* Mornay, on being informed of the bishop's accusation—
that the work contained at least five hundred falsified quota-
tions—challenged him to prove this publicly; and Du Perron
having signified his willingness, a request was made to the
king that the question thus raised might be argued before
appointed witnesses in his Majesty's presence. Henry assented,
not without some malicious satisfaction at seeing his ancient
comrade enter the lists with so accomplished an antagonist;
and the passage of arms was fixed to take place at the Palace
of Fontainebleau in the month of May, 1600. Commissioners
were appointed to superintend the proceedings; the president
de Thou, François Pithou the advocate, and Martin the king's
reader, acting for the Catholics, and Isaac Casaubon and
Canaye de Fresne, president of one of the “chambres mi-
parties,” for the Protestants. As the important day approached,
Mornay betrayed symptoms of hesitation and shrinking from
the contest. Difficulties were started as to the form, subject-
matter, and extent of the controversy; but these were at
length overruled, and the Conference was opened on the 4th of
May in the council chamber of the palace, before the king, the
Chancellor Belliévre, the ministers of state, and a large audi-
ence of distinguished personages. Sixty passages had been
selected for examination, but, at the request of Mornay, these
were reduced at the last moment to nineteen, and only nine
were actually discussed. The first extract was from Joannes
Scotus, on the Real Presence. Scotus, after the usual fashion
of the Schoolmen, first proposes the point to be argued in the
form of a question, then subjoins a negative—“videtur quod
non”—on the part of a Supposed opponent, and lastly proceeds
to refute this fallacy and establish the truth. Mornay, from
want of familiarity with this quaint mode of reasoning, mistook
the negative position for the conclusion of Scotus himself; and
thus attributed to him the very Sentiment which it was his
object to confute. It appeared that he had repeated this
blunder with regard to the second passage, which was taken
from Durandus. The third and fourth quotations were from
* Sully, Economies Royales, Liv. xi. Henri TV., an 1600. Palma-Cayet,
(tom. iii. p. 37, Ed. Paris, 1822). Chronologie Septemaire.
# See L’Estoile, Registre-Journal de
220 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
St. Chrysostom, on the invocation of Saints; these were proved
to have been mutilated by Mornay or his friends, by the
omission of some essential words. The fifth, from St. Jerome,
on the same subject, was found to be curtailed in like manner.
The sixth, on the use of the sign of the cross, attributed by
Mornay to St. Cyril, was not to be discovered in any part of
that father's writings. The seventh was from a law of the
Emperor Theodosius, which Mornay had copied correctly from
a treatise by Crinitus, but it seems that the latter had misquoted
it. The eighth, from St. Bernard, consisted of two passages
which had been jumbled together in such a way as materially
to alter the meaning. And with regard to the ninth, which
was cited by Mornay from Theodoret as relating to image
worship, it appeared that the historian was not speaking at all
of the worship of Christians, but of the idolatry of Pagans.
At seven in the evening the king adjourned the Conference
to the next day. But during the night Mornay was suddenly
taken ill; De Rivière, the King's physician, found him suffering
severely with vomiting, shivering, and pains in the limbs; and
in the morning he declared himself incapable of resuming the
disputation. The Commissioners were accordingly dismissed.
On the 8th of May Mornay quitted Fontainebleau and retired
to Saumur, without taking leave of the king; and this pre-
cipitate abandonment of the field was naturally interpreted as
a confession of defeat. After a time, the fallen hero thought it
necessary to make Some movement for the purpose of covering
his disgrace. With this view he published a statement under
the title of ‘Discours Veritable, in which, after making bitter
complaints against the king, the Chancellor, the Commis-
sioners, and especially against Du Perron, he proceeded to give
his own version of the conference at Fontainebleau;-a version,
it need hardly be said, in the highest degree favourable to
himself. By way of reply, Du Perron contented himself with
making public the official acts of the Conference, attested by
the sign-manual of the king, and accompanied by a letter
from the Chancellor. To these documents he added a brief
and pungent ‘Refutation du faux Discours, from his own pen.”.
* “Actes de la Conference entre le tainebleau le 4” May 1600, publiez
Sieur evesque d'Evreux et le Sieur par permission et authorité de sa Ma-
Duplessis en presence du Roy a Fon- jesté, Par Messire Jacques Davy
A.D. 1600. DU PERRON AND MORNAY. 221
In the dedication of this volume to the king, Du Perron
indulges in the following somewhat caustic remarks:—“If
M. du Plessis does not feel satisfied with what has passed, he
has still in his hands the fifty-two remaining articles of the
first day's discussion, which he carried away without taking
leave of any one, and which since then he must have had
abundant time to study. I am quite ready to give him the
same opportunity of exercising his talents upon these, and after-
wards upon the rest of the five hundred which I spoke of; and
this I shall do all the more willingly, inasmuch as the authors
are of more weight, the topics of more importance, and the mis-
statements more outrageous.”
Sully relates that, during the progress of the debate at
Fontainebleau, the king turned to him, and said, “Well, what
do you think now of your Pope?” “It seems to me, Sire,”
replied the Duke, “that he is more of a Pope than your Majesty
supposes; for at this moment he is giving the red hat to the
Bishop of Evreux.””
The fame of Du Perron received, indeed, no small additional
lustre from the result of the Conference. The Pope sent him
an autograph letter of congratulation in the most flattering
terms. The King, writing to the Duke of Epernon, announced
that “the diocese of Evreux had gained a signal victory
over that of Saumur ; that it was one of the greatest strokes of
Success that had been made by the Church for a long while;
and that proceedings of this kind would effect more towards
bringing back the Protestants to the Church than fifty years of
war and violence.” In 1604, Du Perron was promoted to the
archbishopric of Sens, and appointed Grand Almoner of France;
and in the same year he was elevated by Clement VIII. to the
dignity of cardinal.
All circumstances considered, it is not surprising to find that
the Fontainebleau Conference was followed by several notable
conversions to Catholicism. Ste. Marie du Mont, one of the
gentlemen of the king's chamber, was the first to give this
practical testimony to Du Perron's superiority. It was he who
had been the original promoter of the controversy, by directing
evesque d’Eyreux, Conseiller du Roy * Economies Royales, Liv. xi. (tom.
en son Conseil d’estat, et son premier iii. p. 39).
aumosnier. Evreux, 1601.”
222 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP, W.
the bishop's attention to the rash challenge of Duplessis-Mornay,
and entreating him to answer it. Already half-resolved to
abandon Calvinism, Ste. Marie took leave of his remaining
scruples in the course of the discussion; and on its conclusion
forthwith re-entered the communion of the Church. Canaye de
Eresne, after acting as one of the Protestant Moderators at the
Conference, scandalized his party by taking a similar step
shortly afterwards. Isaac Casaubon, the other commissioner on
the Huguenot side, is said to have been profoundly affected by
Du Perron's reasonings; but, being of a timid, hesitating dispo-
sition, he could not summon sufficient courage to act on his
conviction.” Casaubon was a man of extensive learning, and
one of the best classical scholars of the day. He had filled the
post of Professor of Greek in the University of Montpellier.
Henry IV., who valued him highly, summoned him to Paris,
and made him his librarian. Casaubon had, for some time,
been much dissatisfied with many of the tenets of Calvin, and
with the general course of the Reformation. “I cannot conceal
my disquietude,” he writes to one of his friends, “at the wide
divergence of our belief from that of the ancient Church." For,
not to enter upon other subjects, Luther departed from the
primitive doctrine as to the Sacraments; Zwingle differs from
Luther; Calvin disagrees with both ; and more recent teachers
have abandoned Calvin. For it appears to me most certain
that the doctrine of Calvin on the Eucharist is greatly at
variance with that laid down in Du Moulin's treatise on that
Sacrament, which is now generally taught in our churches.
Hence the opponents of Du Moulin charge him with being no
less adverse to the sentiments of Calvin than to those of every
ancient doctor of the Church. If we continue to go on at this
rate, where is it all to end ?”f
But, although he had little or no faith in the principles of
the Reformation, Casaubon could not make up his mind to an
unqualified acceptance of the system of the Church of Rome.
By way of a mezzo-termine, he resolved, after prolonged inde-
* Du Perron says that he was on the 1 Eucharistie.”— Perroniana, p. 46.
point of declaring his adhesion to the
Catholic Church. “J’ay Vu Monsieur
Casaubon prest a prendre jour pour
faire abjuration. Il avait mesme pro-
mis de traduire on Ilatin mon livre de
Per fratres Puteanos (Dupuy), 1669.
+ Casaubon to Wytenbogart (Joanni
Utenbogardo), Epist. DCLXx. Edit.
Roterodam. 1709.
A.D. 1600. ISAAC CASAUBON. 223
cision, to adopt the communion of the Church of England;
and quitting France, under circumstances apparently not very
creditable to his sincerity and honour, he proceeded to London.
He now ingratiated himself with King James I, who gave him
a prebendal stall at Canterbury, and afterwards another at
Westminster. One of his sons, however, was honest enough to
abjure the Reformed religion, and took the vows as a Capuchin
monk. His father's words, on parting with him, were charac-
teristic. “I give you my blessing with all my heart. I con-
demn you not ; I beg you not to condemn me. Jesus Christ
will judge us both.” Casaubon died in England in 1614, and
was buried in the Abbey Church of Westminster.”
Du Perron, as Cardinal, Grand Almoner, and Archbishop of
Sens (which province at that time included the capital and the
diocese of Paris), took a conspicuous part in the administration
of affairs both in Church and State. He soon proved himself a
strenuous supporter of Ultramontane doctrine, and a powerful
champion of Papal interests. In the many anxious questions
which were debated in his time in the Roman consistory, the
opinion of Du Perron always carried extraordinary weight,
and rarely failed to command the assent of the majority. Such,
indeed, was the fascination of his eloquence, that Pope Paul W.
was accustomed to say to the cardinals around him, “Let us all
pray God to inspire Cardinal Du Perron; for he will make us
believe whatever he pleases.”
Amid the seductions of general admiration and brilliant
Success, this great prelate Seems to have preserved much sim-
plicity and modesty of character. He was ever ready to acknow-
ledge to their full extent the gifts and powers of others, and to
depreciate his own in comparison. “To convince is but a small
thing,” he was wont to say: “to convert is the grand difficulty.
Munificé fovit. Posteritasque ob doctrinam
* The following is the inscription on
the mural tablet erected to him in the
South transept of the abbey:—
ISAAC’ CASAUBON”.
O doctionum quicquid est assurgite
Huic tam colendo nomini.
Quem Gallia Reip. literaria bono peperit.
Henricus IV. Francorum Rex invictissimus
Lutetiam literis suis evocatum bibliothecae Sua-
praefecit. -
Charumque deinceps dum vixit habuit.
Eoque terris erepto Jacobus Mag Brit. monarcha
Regum doctissimus doctis indulgentiss, in An-
gliam accivit. g
asternum mirabitur.
H. S. E. invidiá major.
Obiit astern. in Xto. vitam anhelans
I(al. IVL. MDCXIV. aet. Lv.
Viro opt. immortalitate digniss.
Th. Mortonus Ep. Dunelm.
Jucundissima, quoad frui licuit, consuetudinis
IłłCDOOT.
pr. S. P. C.V.
MDCXXXIV.
Quinosse vult Casaubonum
Non saxa Sed chartas legat
Superfuturas marmori
Et profuturas posteris,
224 THE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. CHAP. W.
I may be able to silence heretics, but the man to convert them
is François de Sales.” “ The celebrated person here named (to
whose history the reader's attention will be called hereafter)
was at this time beginning to attract notice and interest in
Trance. François de Sales, then coadjutor to the Bishop of
Geneva, preached the course of Lent sermons in the chapel
of the Louvre in the year 1602, and produced a marvellous
impression, not only on Henry IV. and his family, but on the
Huguenot nobility, who flocked in crowds to hear him ; several
of them are said to have been converted in consequence.
The Gallican Church possessed at this period, besides Du
Perron, six other prelates who had attained the rank of cardinal.
These were—(1) François de Joyeuse, Archbishop of Narbonne,
afterwards of Toulouse, and finally of Rouen. De Joyeuse was
raised to the purple by Gregory XIII. in 1583. The greater
part of his life was passed in diplomatic employments. For
several years he was agent for the Duke of Mayenne and the
League at . the Court of Rome; but on the conversion of
Henry IV. he at once declared in his favour, and exerted all
his influence to procure his absolution at the hands of Cle-
ment VIII. Perhaps the most important transaction in which
this cardinal figured was the reconciliation effected by his means
between the Venetian States and the Church, after the rash
interdict inflicted on the Republic by Paul W. De Joyeuse
enjoyed a high place in the confidence of Henry IV., and was
named by him a member of the Council of Regency in 1610, in
the prospect of his setting out to join the army a few days
before his assassination. The Cardinal died in 1615.
(2.) Arnaud d'Ossat was a remarkable instance of elevation,
by the force of personal merit, from obscurity and poverty to
the highest posts of dignity and honour. His father was a
blacksmith in a small hamlet of Languedoc. Both his parents
died while he was a mere child, and he was left friendless and
destitute in the world. A charitable gentleman in the neigh-
bourhood took pity on him, and had him educated as a com-
panion to his nephew. His powers of mind rapidly developed,
and he prosecuted his studies with unremitting energy and
* Vie de S. François de Sales, par le Curé de S. Sulpice (M. Hamon), tom. i.
Liv. iii. p. 396.
. A.D. 1600. - FRIENCEI CARDINALS. 225
surprising success." For some time he practised as a barrister,
but abandoned that profession on being appointed secretary
to the French ambassador at Rome, and from that time forth
he was identified with the diplomatic intercourse between France
and the Holy See. Upon the death of the ambassador De Foix,
D'Ossat succeeded to the post of chargé d'affaires at Rome,
and in that capacity conducted the intricate ecclesiastical ne-
gociations of the earlier part of the reign of Henry IV. His
services in the affair of the King's reconciliation with the Pope
were rewarded with the bishopric of Rennes, from which he
was afterwards translated to Bayeux. D’OSSat was created a
Cardinal in 1598, and continued to reside chiefly at Rome as
the official representative of his sovereign until his death, which
happened in 1604.
(3.) François d'Escoubleau de Sourdis was the eldest son of a
noble family; and, had he pursued the walk of life for which he
was originally destined, would doubtless have risen to high rank
at court and in the army. But his impressions of religion were
so deep and strong that he found it no difficult task to forego
his brilliant prospects in the world. Having taken orders, he
devoted himself energetically to the work of the ministry, and
aëquired a distinguished reputation in the south of France.
Clement VIII., at the personal solicitation of Henry IV., gave
him a cardinal's hat in 1598, and he was named to the arch-
bishopric of Bordeaux in the same year. Cardinal de Sourdis
administered his diocese with exemplary zeal, vigour, and
piety; insomuch that he was commonly called the “French
Borromeo.” He laboured earnestly, and with considerable
success, to restore discipline, and raise the standard of pro-
fessional exertion, among his clergy ; and a provincial Council
which he held at Bordeaux in 1624 is an event of no small
importance in the ecclesiastical amnals of the time. This
admirable prelate died in 1628, and was succeeded as arch-
bishop by his brother, Henri de Sourdis;—a man of ability,
but of a disposition more ambitious and warlike than became
his profession. He acted as second in command to Cardinal
Richelieu at the famous siege of La Rochelle.
(4.) Pierre de Gondi, a member of the great Florentine
family of that name, was consecrated Bishop of Langres in
1566, and translated to Paris two years afterwards. He was
WOL. I. Q
226 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. W.
a prelate of high merit, and conducted himself with singular
moderation and discretion during the troubles of the League.
Pope Sixtus W. made him a cardinal in 1587. Some years
afterwards he resigned the bishopric of Paris in favour of his
nephew, Henri de Gondi. He died in 1616. The see of Paris,
it should be noticed, was occupied successively by four prelates
of the Gondi family. The first was Pierre de Gondi, above
mentioned; the second, his nephew Henri, son of the first
T)uc de Retz, and a favourite counsellor of Louis XIII. The
third, Jean François de Gondi, brother of the preceding, was
the first Archbishop of Paris; the see having been detached
from the province of Sens, and raised to metropolitical rank,
by Gregory XV. in 1622. The fourth, Jean François Paul, son
of Philippe Comte de Joigny, was the celebrated Cardinal de
Retz, the demagogue of the Fronde ; a man whose name is
associated in history with pursuits and qualities the most
diametrically opposite to those of the ecclesiastical profession.
He became Archbishop of Paris on the death of his uncle in 1654.
(5.) Anne Escars de Givri, Bishop of Lisieux, and afterwards
of Metz, had been a zealous member of the Catholic League;
and as such, his elevation to the Cardinalate in 1596 was by
no means acceptable to Henry IV. Appreciating, however, the
prelate's many excellent qualities, Henry treated him with
favour and confidence, and advanced him to the see of Metz.
Cardinal de Givri died in 1612.
(6.) Charles, Cardinal of Lorraine, was the son of Charles,
Duke of Lorraine, by the Princess Claude, daughter of King
Henry II. He was Bishop of Metz, and subsequently of
Strasburg, and was created cardinal by Sixtus W. in 1589. He
died at an early age in 1607.
The general spirit of Henry's policy in the earlier part of his
reign was, naturally and pre-eminently, that of conciliation.
The Edict of Nantes was one movement of vast importance in
this direction. It was closely followed by another of scarcely less
moment, but prompted by very different considerations, and
tending towards almost opposite results, namely, the recall of
the banished Jesuits to France.
On the 29th of December, 1594, at a moment when the
A.D. 1603. THE JESUITS RECALLED TO FRANCE. 227
popular mind was violently exasperated by the attempt of Jean
Châtel to assassinate the king on his return from Amiens, the
Parliament of Paris had published an arrêt by which all mem-
bers of the “so-called Society of Jesus” were expelled from the
kingdom, “as corrupters of youth, disturbers of the public peace,
and enemies to the King and the State.” The property of the
Order was confiscated; Jean Châtel’s house was levelled with
the ground; and an obelisk was raised on the spot, with an
inscription which recorded that his crime was dictated by “that
pestilent sect of heretics, who, masking under the garb of piety
the most atrocious wickedness, had of late publicly maintained
that it was lawful to take the life of the king.” The sentence
of banishment was executed only within the jurisdiction of the
Parliament of Paris.” In other parts of France—in Languedoc,
Gascony, and Lorraine—the residence of the Jesuits was con-
mived at, and their educational labours were not interrupted.
No sooner had the king reconciled himself with the Holy See,
than representations reached him from many quarters in behalf
of the proscribed followers of Loyola. Cardinal de Medicis, the
Pope's legate, assured him, in the name of the Holy Father,
that he could not do a greater service to the Church than by
taking measures for their restoration, and reminded him that he
had made a promise to that effect on the occasion of his absolu-
tion. Apology after apology was put forth by members and
friends of the Order, elaborately defending it from the imputa-
tions of regicide and revolutionary doctrine, and indignantly
repudiating all complicity with the traitorous deed of Châtel.
The popular persuasion, that the Jesuits were intimately
leagued with the enemies of France, and were unscrupulous
agents of Philip of Spain, was combated with vehement
earnestness. At length, on the 1st of January, 1600, the
project of re-establishment was mooted in the royal Council;
the king, however, acted with caution, and, finding that several
of the ministers were adverse to it, postponed the matter for
further consideration. -
Three years later it was resumed, and this time with practical
effect. Just at that moment, the French Protestants held a
* The “ressort” of the Parliament &c., distributed in various provinces,
of Paris included more than 150 in- || –the Isle de France, Orleanois, Mainé,
ferior tribunals—“presidiaux,” “bail- || Touraine, Anjou, Berry, Nivernois,
liages,” “sénéchaussés,” “chatellenies,” | Champagne, and Picardy.
Q 2
228 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
general Synod at Gap in Dauphiné; and here, among other
extravagant proceedings, they added to their Confession a new
article of faith, affirming the Pope to be Antichrist—the “son
of perdition” predicted by St. Paul—the “beast” of Daniel
and of the Apocalypse. It appears that they adopted this
offensive dogma because it was thought necessary to support
one of their pastors named Ferrier, who had lately maintained
the same sentiment, and had encouraged his brethren in holding
like intemperate language. The good sense of Sully revolted
against this strange piece of synodical legislation. He remon-
strated with some of the leading ministers; and his arguments,
accompanied by an intimation of the King's serious displeasure,
procured at length the suppression of the article in question.
The Pope, however, was so vehement in his indignation, that
Henry found considerable difficulty in appeasing him ; and,
according to Sully's account, it was chiefly with a view to give
his Holiness satisfaction for the offence that he now finally
determined on re-establishing the Jesuits.” -
During a visit which the king made to Metz, in March, 1603,
certain of the Jesuit fathers were received by him at a private
audience, being introduced by the Duke of Epernon and afavourite
courtier named Fouquet de la Varenne.f The Provincial, Ignace
Armand, took care to improve the opportunity, and succeeded in
obtaining from his Majesty an assurance that they would not
have long to wait for decisive measures in their favour. On his
return to the capital, Henry assembled the Council of State, and
laid before them his design for re-instating the Society of Jesus.
The members present were the Constable Montmorency, the
Chancellor Bellièvre, the Secretary of State Willeroi, Sully,
Chateauneuf, Pontcarré, and the presidents. of the Parliament
Sillery, De Vic, Calignon, Caumartin, Jeannin, and De Thou.
The majority of these were favourably disposed towards the
Jesuits; and as it was understood that the monarch's mind was
already made up on the subject, little or no discussion took place.
* Economies Royales, Liv. xvi. plus agréables auprès des grands. Ce
f “Le plus puissant Solliciteur des favori était Lieutenant-Général de la
Jesuites était Guillaume Fouquet de la province d’Anjou, Gouverneur de La
Varenne, qui, des plus bas offices de la | Flèche, Abbé d'Ainay de Lyon, &c.”—
maison du Roi, s'était élevé jusque dans | Bonav. Racine, Abreg. de l'Hist, Eccles.
le cabinet par ses complaisances et par tom. x, p. 164.
les ministères de volupte qui sont les
A.D. 1603. THE JESUITS RECALLED TO FRANCE. 229
The only objector was De Thou, who proposed that the case
should be referred to the Parliament; and that its decision should
be final. The veteran Sully avoided giving his opinion at the
Council board; but the next day he sought an interview with
Henry, and candidly expressed his sense of the inexpediency and
danger of the proposed scheme. His arguments were strongly
flavoured, as was natural, by his religious prejudices; but they
displayed at the same time remarkable Sagacity and foresight.
He urged that the Jesuits, adepts as they were notoriously in
all the arts of intrigue, would not fail to stir up bitterness and
animosity between his Majesty's subjects of the two rival com-
munions; that, if restored unconditionally, they would make
such use of the various expedients at their command, in private
familiar intercourse, in the pulpit, and, above all, in the con-
fessional, as would array class against class in open enmity,
and Sooner or later precipitate the kingdom once more into
civil war. He feared, moreover, that they would completely
gain the ear, and perhaps the heart, of the monarch himself;
and would exercise their influence by excluding from, and ad-
mitting to, his presence and councils whatever individuals they
pleased. He reminded him, again, of the absolute subserviency
of the Jesuits to their General and to the Pope; the former
of whom was always a Spaniard, while the latter was depen-
dent upon the King of Spain for the security of his Italian
possessions. Lastly, he appealed to Henry's personal expe-
rience of their ill-will, and pointed out that it was their
interest to place another prince upon the throne, in whom
they might hope to find a more passive instrument of their own
purposes. . .
Some of these anticipations have almost a prophetic air, when
we regard them in connection with certain passages in the sub-
Sequent history of the Jesuits in France.
Henry, in reply, told Sully that, as he was now situated, he
must of necessity do one of two things; either completely
reinstate the Jesuits, or expel them from France more rigorously
than ever. In the latter case they would be driven to extremities,
and would inevitably embark in desperate conspiracies against
his life; and, in spite of all precautions, they might One day
succeed in their design. This, it appears, was a risk which even
the chivalrous Henry had no mind to incur if he could avoid
230 THE GALLICAN CHURCH, CHAP. W.
it.* The force of such a consideration was, of course, irre-
sistible. Sully remained silent; and the king proceeded to
give effect to his determination.
The ordonnance recalling the Jesuits was signed at Rouen in
September, 1603; but on being presented to the Parliament of
Paris for registration, it met with a warm and obstinate resist-
ance. The magistrates proceeded in a body to the Louvre,
headed by their first president, Achille de Harlai; who, in a
speech full of energetic eloquence, laboured to dissuade the
sovereign from a step so pregnant with disaster both to the royal
person and to the State. “His harangue,” says Dupleix, f “was
an outrageous philippic, crammed with all the abuse which had
been heaped on the Society in the pleadings of Pasquier and
Arnauld, the Catechism of the Said Pasquier, and by the author
of the Franc-advis, rather than a fair and reasonable remon-
strance.” It was, however, a performance of considerable talent.
De Harlai adverted to the strong opposition which had been
raised by the Sorbonne and by the clergy of all ranks to the
original introduction of the Jesuits into France. The Sorbonne
had warned the Government of that day that if this step were
taken, it would not be for edification but for destruction. He
enlarged on the dangerous character of an order of men claiming
to be exempt from all jurisdiction, spiritual and temporal,
except that of the Pope; and holding, as a fundamental
maxim, that the Pope may excommunicate kings, and that
an excommunicated king is no better than a tyrant, so that all
men may lawfully rise against him. He intimated to the king
that his predecessors, even those who were most disposed to
govern absolutely, had always been accustomed to regulate
affairs connected with public justice by the advice of their
Parliament, and to submit their own inclinations to the autho-
rity of the laws. “We entreat you, Sire,” he concluded, “to
uphold these powers which have always been legally vested in
your Parliamentary Courts. If they should unhappily be lost,
pardon us for observing that the loss would fall, not upon the
Parliament, but upon yourself.”
* “Ile roi répondit en particulier a toutes choses, hormis du couteau Je-
ses amis et aux gens du Parlement, Suitique.”—D'Aubigné, Hist, Univer-
qui lui parlaient contre les Jesuites, selle, Part II.
Assurez-moi de ma vie. Ce monarque f Scipion Dupleix, Hist. de France,
si intrépide avoit perdu la crainte de | Henri IV., p. 346, Paris, 1633.
A.D. 1604. THE JESUITS RECALLED TO FRANCE. 231
The friends of the Jesuits were somewhat apprehensive that
Henry might not be able to reply off-hand to the studied and
dignified address of the Chief Magistrate.” He acquitted
himself, however, with an ease, force, and mastery both of
argument and language, which far surpassed their expectations.
De Thou, and other writers hostile to the Order, contest the
authenticity of the speech commonly attributed to his Majesty
on this occasion; but there are no sufficient grounds for question-
ing it. It is given at length by the contemporary historian
Pierre Matthieu, who is known to have been furnished with
materials for his work by the king himself; and all the evidence
derivable from its style and phraseology is strongly in favour of
its genuineness.f
Henry assured them that the difficulties which they had
started were only such as he himself had fully considered during
many years past ; and hinted that, in taking cognizance of state
affairs of that description, they had travelled beyond their
legitimate sphere. With regard to the Colloquy of Poissy (on
which occasion the Society had first succeeded in establishing
itself in France), he observed that things would have gone
better for the Catholics if all had played their part with the
same ability as was displayed by a certain Jesuit (Lainez), who
fortunately happened to be there. “Ignorance,” he continued,
“has been in all ages the malicious enemy of knowledge; and
I have remarked that ever since I first began to speak of re-
storing the Jesuits, two classes of men have been foremost in
opposing it, those who belong to the pretended Reformed
religion, and ecclesiastics of disreputable lives; and this has
Served to make them all the more entitled to esteem. If the
Sorbonne formerly condemned them, this was done, after your
own example at present, without knowing much about them ; I
believe that the existing Theological Faculty estimates them
very highly. The University opposed them, because they teach
* D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronol., tom. i.
p. 27. The work of this learned Jesuit
commences with the seventeenth cen-
tury. The great ability with which it
is executed, and the amount of estima-
tion generally accorded to it, justify me
in referring to it throughout the period
which it embraces. I believe D’Avrigny
to be upon the whole an accurate, trust-
Worthy writer; nevertheless, when We
consider the critical circumstances of
those times, and the grave party interests
involved in the controversies then pre-
wailing, it is necessary to make a certain
allowance for prepossessions and ten-
dencies from which he could not possi-
bly have been altogether exempt.
# See also the Lettres Missives de
Henri IV., published by authority of
the French Government, tom. vi. p. 182,
aud Schoell, Cours d’Histoire des Etats
Européens, tom. xvii.
232 - TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
better than others; this is the real reason why the University
is deserted, as you complain, since their expulsion, and why
students flock after them to Douai and other places, both
within and beyond the kingdom, You Say, again, that the
Jesuits attract superior minds, and choose their members from
among the best of men. I commend them for so doing. I
desire that the best men we can procure should be chosen to
serve as soldiers, and that none but those who deserve it shall
be admitted to seats on the judicial bench ; I wish that in all
professions virtue and merit should be the main distinctions
between man and man. It is objected that they gain entrance
into cities and towns by whatever means they can ; SO do others.
I myself was obliged to find my way to the throne as best I
might. But it must be allowed that through their perseverance
and steadiness of conduct the Jesuits succeed in accomplishing
whatever they undertake ; and their scrupulous care to main-
tain their original constitution without change will ensure to
them a long existence.
“It is alleged that the King of Spain avails himself of their
services. I, for my part, declare that I mean to do the same;
for why should France be in a less advantageous position in this
respect than Spain? I consider the Jesuits needful to my
empire; they are native Frenchmen, and owe me allegiance as
their sovereign. I do not wish to be on bad terms with any
class of my natural born subjects; and if there should be any
danger of their betraying my Secrets to my enemies, be sure
that I shall not communicate to them anything more than I
think proper. Be So good as to allow me to manage this affair;
I have settled many others far more difficult; do not trouble
yourselves further in the business than to obey my orders.”
Notwithstanding the king's peremptory tone, the Parliament
still demurred, and attempted to interpose modifications before
they consented to register the Ordonnance. Henry rejected
their suggestions, and insisted on unqualified and speedy com-
pliance. The Parliament at length registered the edict on
the 2nd of January, 1604, and the Jesuits resumed their legal
position in France.
Several conditions, however, were appended to this act of
grace. The edict specified the localities in which the Order was
authorized to possess colleges: namely, Toulouse, Auch, Bor-
deaux, Rodez, Limoges, Périgueux, Aubenas, Tournon, Béziers,
A.D. 1604. THE JESUITS REGALLED TO FRANCE. 233
and Le Puy; to these were now added three others, Lyons,
Dijon, and La Flèche. In no other place was their residence to
be fixed without the king's express permission. They were all
to be native Frenchmen, and were to take an oath before
the royal officers, “without mental reservation,” that they
would never attempt anything to the prejudice of the king or
against the tranquillity of the State. They were to be incapable
of acquiring real property by purchase, gift, or otherwise, with-
out the king's permission; nor could they succeed to any
inheritance either direct or collateral. They were never to
infringe the rights and privileges of bishops, of civil corporations,
of the Universities, or of religious orders. They were not to
preach, administer the Sacraments, or hear confessions, beyond
the walls of their own establishments, unless by licence from
the ordinary. And lastly, one member of their body was to
reside constantly at Court, in the quality of preacher, to be
answerable to the king for the good conduct of his brethren.”
Amy infraction of these articles was to be punished by the revo-
cation of the present edict. - -
The individual selected by the king to remain near his
person in the capacity of hostage for the good behaviour of
the rest of the fraternity was Pierre Coton or Cotton, a native
of Nerondes in the Forez, where he was born in 1564. At
the age of twenty he entered the Jesuit college at Arona in
Piedmont; and after completing his noviciate, he studied theo-
logy with singular zeal first at Milan and afterwards at Rome.
Having given proof of distinguished Oratorical talent, Coton was
sent by his superiors to Lyons, where he acquired a first-rate
reputation as a preacher. He was soon employed on missions,
and engaged in polemical discussions with the Huguenots
throughout the southern provinces. His success was almost un-
exampled. At Nismes, in September, 1600, he held a debate
with the Protestant minister Chamier, who had charged him
with falsifying quotations in a treatise which he had published
on the Eucharistic sacrifice ; hoping thus to turn the tables on
the Catholics for the humiliation which had just been inflicted
on Duplessis-Mornay. Judges having been appointed on both
sides, the question was publicly argued in the presence of
* See the Edict in Isambert, Anciennes Lois Françaises, tom, XV. p. 288.
234 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
Cardinal de Sourdis, the Bishop of Nismes, and a large audience.
Coton cleared himself triumphantly from the charge of misquo-
tation, and defended his doctrine with so much spirit, learning,
readiness of resource, and force of reasoning, as to produce a
marked impression. The president Canaye de Fresne arrived
from Paris during the progress of the discussion, and interposed
his influence to bring it to a close, which was done accordingly.
That conscientious magistrate, whose judgment was already
substantially convinced by the logic of Du Perron at Fontaine-
bleau, made his public recantation of Calvinism a few months
afterwards. Thirty-five Protestants of Nismes followed his
example.
The talents of Father Coton were well known to Henry IV.
through the good offices of Lesdiguières, who admired him
warmly ; and from the first moment of his introduction at
Court the King seems to have conceived for him feelings of
extraordinary regard. A vacancy occurring just then in the
Archbishopric of Arles, Henry offered the preferment to his new
favourite, and was surprised when he declined it, on the ground
that the rules of his Order forbade him to accept any ecclesi-
astical dignity. Such a proof of disinterestedness is said to
have raised the Jesuits still higher in the royal esteem; and it
was not long before Coton was installed in the deeply respon-
sible office of the king's confessor.”
This was the commencement of the prodigious empire which
was exercised by the Jesuits over the entire fabric of society in
France during the Seventeenth century, and in the first half of
the eighteenth. Having Once gained the prestige of this confi-
dential relationship with royalty, they monopolised the position
with a long Series of the most skilful directors that the Institute
could furnish; and however reprehensible their policy may have
been in certain instances, there cannot be a clearer proof of the
superlative ability with which the Order was governed in the
earlier part of its career. The obligation to have one of their
number in constant residence at Court, imposed originally as a
mark of distrust and a means of control, was thus converted by
* The sudden ascendency of F. confederate of the enemies of France:—
Coton over Henry occasioned various “Autant que le roi ſait de pas
specimens of epigrammatic Wit. The fol- le l’êre Coton l'accompagne;
lowing indicates the popular suspicion Maisce bon roi ne songe pas
that the new confessor Was an agent or Que le fin Colom vient d’Espagme.
A.D. 1605. THE JESUITS RECALLED TO FRANCE. 235
their adroitness into an instrument of moral domination almost
without example. -
One of the first points carried by Father Coton after assuming
his new character was the demolition of the obelisk on the site of
Jean Châtel’s house, which mutely, yet eloquently, denounced
the Order as the instigators of his crime. It was removed in
July, 1605, and the measure provoked no small amount of
sarcastic merriment among the Parisians. In one pamphlet
the obelisk was personified, and made to declare that after all
its fate was not to be regretted, since, though first erected as an
act of justice, its destruction was prompted by clemency and
compassion.” Another suggested that in order to obliterate all
trace of the condoned offence, the king Ought to replace the
tooth which had been dashed from his mouth by the blow of
Châtel’s dagger.
The chateau of La Flèche, in Anjou, was now bestowed, as
a token of distinguished favour, on the Jesuits, and became a
collegiate seminary under their direction. The King endowed
the institution with princely generosity. The most accomplished
members of the Order in France,—among them Fathers Pétau,
Caussin, Cellot, Mambrun, Vavasseur—were appointed to the
professorial chairs; and in the course of a few years La Flèche
attained the highest reputation, and was thronged with students
from all parts of the kingdom. Réne Descartes, afterwards the
renowned philosopher, was one of the first pupils admitted
within its walls.
Similar establishments on a smaller scale were founded under
royal patronage at Bourges, Poitiers, Amiens, Moulins, and
elsewhere; and in 1608 the Jesuits received permission to open
a house in the metropolis. In the same year the king thought
proper to dispense with the regulation which required all
Jesuits domiciled in France to be native-born Frenchmen.
Foreign members of the Order were thenceforth to share all the
privileges enjoyed by their brethren under the late edict. It
was not, however, till Several years later that they obtained
licence to give public lectures at Paris; nor were they even then
admitted to the corporate body of the University.
In the transactions which we have been reviewing, as well as
* - La Prosopopée de la Pyramide. See Dulaure, Histoire de Paris, tom. v.
236 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. W.
in other ecclesiastical affairs of the highest moment, Henry IV.
is known to have been guided by the counsels of an illustrious
prelate, whose character and ministry left so deep a mark on
the religious Society of his age, that Some account of him is
indispensable to our narrative. -
FRANÇoſs DE SALES cannot be claimed, in strict accuracy, as
a member of the Gallican Church. He was, however, inti-
mately connected with France by education and early associa-
tion ; he maintained a close intercourse with that country
throughout life; and in several important passages of his history
he acted with the national bishops and clergy rather as one of
their own body than as a foreigner.
Sprung from one of the most ancient and distinguished
houses of Savoy, François de Sales inherited worldly prospects
attractive in no common degree. From his boyhood, however,
he discovered a decided vocation for the Sacred ministry; and
disdaining in comparison the gifts of fortune, the allurements
of pleasure, and the advantages of high social position, he
devoted himself with full purpose of heart to that laborious
career. He received the tonsure at the age of eleven ; and
after some elementary instruction at the college of Annécy, he
was sent to pursue his studies at Paris under the care of the
Jesuits. Here his preceptors were the famous Génébrard, and
Maldonatus (Maldonat), author of the well-known Commentary
on the Gospels.” Under such tuition his taste for ecclesiastical
learning and for a religious life rose to intense enthusiasm. It
was to no purpose that his father procured for him a lucrative
appointment connected with the Parliament at Chambéry, which
would have opened an almost certain path to distinction in the
legal profession. François modestly, but steadily, declined it,
and remained fixed in his early determination. At length his
father consented to his wishes, though not without considerable
reluctance; and in 1592 he was ordained deacon, and appointed
prévôt of the cathedral church of Annécyt by Claude de
Granier, titular Bishop of Geneva. François de Sales at once
threw himself with all the energies of his impassioned nature
* Marsollier, Vie de S. Fr. de Sales, been transferred to Annécy in 1534,
tom. i. p. 26. When Calvinism became dominant at
f The office of prévôt answers nearly Geneva.
to that of dean. The episcopal See had
A.D. 1592. FRANÇois DE SALES. . 237
into the duties of the pastoral care; in which his zeal and
ability became so conspicuous, that as soon as he was admitted:
to priests' orders, his diocesan entrusted him with an enterprise
requiring the very highest ministerial qualifications, and involv-
ing no small share of personal danger. This was a mission for
re-establishing the Catholic religion in the province of Chablais,
and in the bailliages of Gex, Ternier, and Gaillard, where it had
been almost totally suppressed by the Zwinglian Reformation
fifty years before. Accompanied by only one colleague,” a
kinsman of like spirit, François undertook without hesitation
this hazardous task, in spite of the tears, intreaties, and remon-
strances of his nearest relatives. The inhabitants of the Chablais
were a rude, ferocious race, and of that fanatical type in religion
which Calvinism usually engenders. The two missionaries met
with a reception which might have daunted the bravest heart.
During the whole of the first year they endured a bitter perse-
cution. Coarse abuse, reckless calumny, cowardly insults, deadly
menaces, were their daily portion: oftentimes their lives were in
imminent peril, and they were forced to fly from “the madness
of the people” into the recesses of the forests. These trials
they supported with heroic fortitude. The grossest outrage
never overcame their gentleness of temper; the severest hard-
ships were never allowed to interrupt the progress of their
labours. At last the tide turned. The first symptom of the
change was a remarkable reformation among the licentious
soldiery of the garrison of Thonon, the capital of the district;
and such a phenomenon in such a quarter made an immediate
impression on the town and neighbourhood. The impulse, once
given, proved irresistible. This practical specimen of the effect
of Catholic teaching was a triumphant answer to the falsehoods
so industriously propagated by the Calvinists; the prejudices of
the multitude began to abate; the instructions of François and
his companion, so long scorned, were sought with avidity, and
received with admiring gratitude. Never was reaction more
* His cousin Louis de Sales, one of cause was the conversion of the Baron
the canons of Annécy. d’Avully, a nobleman of high character
+ Vie de S. Fr. de Sales, par le curé and great influence in those parts, who
de St. Sulpice (M. Hamon), tom. i. had hitherto been a determined sup-
Liv. ii. p. 153. porter of Protestantism.—Vie de S. Fr.
f Another event which contributed de Sales, parle curé de St. Sulpice, tom.
much to the advancement of the Catholic i. Liv. ii. p. 179.
238 . THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. V.
complete. Day after day fresh conversions were announced, to
the great discomfiture of the Protestant ministers; and the
flock thus happily regained by the Church became ere long
powerful enough to effect the restoration of Catholic worship in
the principal church of Thonon. The details of the movement
read like the records of a miraculous age. Six hundred indi-
viduals are said to have yielded to the matchless eloquence and
pathos of a single discourse of François de Sales. Some of his
biographers estimate at seventy-two thousand the number of those
who were reclaimed from Zwinglian and Calvinistic error during
his mission in the Chablais.”
In less than four years from the commencement of the
undertaking, François de Sales had the satisfaction of seeing
Catholicism fully re-instated, and its ordinances universally fre-
quented, throughout the district which had been the scene of
his labours. His success drew forth warm congratulations from
his sovereign the Duke of Savoy, from the aged Bishop of
Geneva, and from Cardinal de Medici, Papal legate at the court
of France. Bishop Granier shortly afterwards named him
coadjutor in the diocese of Geneva, with the right of succession
on the occurrence of a vacancy. Accepting the charge, though
with hesitation and unfeigned diffidence, De Sales now pro-
ceeded to Rome, where he was received with distinguished
honour by the reigning Pontiff, Clement VIII. Seated in the
midst of a crowded consistory, the Pope caused the bishop-
designate to be examined in his presence upon various points of
controversial and casuistical divinity; the object being (as it
appears) to give him an opportunity of displaying his unrivalled
powers and acquirements before this august assembly. The
examination was conducted chiefly by Cardinals Bellarmine
and Baronius, but occasionally by the Holy Father himself.
When it was finished, the Pope embraced him, hailed him as
the “Apostle of the Chablais,” and addressed to him the words
of the royal Preacher, “Bibe, fili mi, aquam de cisternå tuâ, et
* Marsollier, Vie de S. Fr. de Sales,
tom. i. p. 66.
f Among the subjects on which he
was questioned were the following: (1)
The formal cause of the blessedness of
the Saints, (2) Whether bishops have
power to absolve from the spiritual dis-
abilities resulting from hidden sin.
With regard to the latter point, the
Pope himself ruled it in the negative ;
upon which François at once expressed
his filial submission to the will of his
Holiness.-Vie, &c., parle curé de S. Sul-
pice, tom. i., Liv. iii. p. 344.
A.D. 1602. FRANÇOIS DE SALES. 239
fluenta putei tui; deriventur fontes tui foras, et in plateis aquas
tuas divide.” (Prov. v. 15, 16.) He was immediately preconised
coadjutor to the Bishop of Geneva, with the title of Bishop of
Nicopolis in partibus.
Early in the following year François de Sales was summoned
to the French metropolis, to negociate with Henry and his
ministers in favour of a portion of the flock entrusted to him,
who had recently been transferred by the fortune of war from
Savoy to the dominion of France. By the treaty of Lyons, con-
cluded between Henry IV. and Charles Emanuel of Savoy in
January, 1601, the “Pays de Gex" was ceded, or rather restored,
to France, together with the adjoining districts. The bailliage
of Gex contained thirty-seven parishes, and about thirty thousand
inhabitants, of whom the great majority were Calvinists. On
behalf of the Catholic minority, the bishop-coadjutor petitioned,
1st, that the Catholic religion might be freely exercised in all
places within the bailliage where it had prevailed before the
religious troubles; and 2ndly, that the Church property which
had been illegally seized in the so-called Reformation should be
restored to the Catholic clergy and conventual houses. These
were points upon which it was not easy to obtain satisfaction
from the French Government. The Secretary Willeroi hesi-
tated, temporized, procrastinated; and François de Sales found
himself unavoidably detained at Paris for many months. His
sojourn there was memorable for results of deep importance to
the welfare of the Gallican Church.
The course of Lent Sermons in the Chapel of the Louvre,
for the year 1602, was preached, as already noticed, by the
coadjutor of Geneva; and several interesting cases of conversion
are recorded to have followed among Calvinists of the upper
classes. The king treated him from the first with extreme
reverence and admiration, and often consulted him upon matters
of the most private nature affecting his conscience. Nor was
the bishop chargeable with aught of that unworthy complaisance
which is so great a snare to courtly ecclesiastics under like cir-
cumstances. His Majesty left it distinctly on record, that
“M. de Génève never flattered him.” No man could be better
qualified, by the rare combination of fervent devotion and
spirituality of mind with great practical Sagacity and energy,
to take the lead in works of Church reformation and Christian
240 THE GALLICAN CEHURCEI. CHAP. W.
beneficence. Applications now arrived from all quarters for his
advice and co-operation. Every new undertaking was sub-
mitted to him for approval; no gathering for any purpose con-
nected with the work of the Church was reckoned complete
without his presence; his services as a spiritual guide were
sought with the utmost eagerness in every grade of society.
Nothing was talked of in Paris but the virtues of the coadjutor
of Geneva;-his gentleness, his tenderness, his patience, his
charity, his disinterestedness, his never-failing serenity and
equanimity of temper.
Benry IV. repeatedly attempted to induce François de Sales
to take up his abode permanently in France. “Remain with
me, M. de Génève,” said the monarch; “I will obtain for you
richer preferment, more desirable employments, than any which
the Duke of Savoy has to dispose of.” But the good bishop's
ambition did not lie in this direction. He explained to Henry
that he was not at liberty to form any fresh ecclesiastical con-
nexion; he was already united to a spouse who commanded all
his interest, care, and affection; and he could not be so ungene-
rous as to abandon her because she was poor.” He quitted
Paris on his return to his diocese in the autumn of 1602; and
during the journey received tidings of the death of Bishop
Granier, and of his own succession to the see. On the 8th of
December, 1602, he was consecrated Bishop of Geneva by the
Archbishop of Vienne, Metropolitan of the province. *
Among other results traceable to the influence of this gifted
prelate may be mentioned the establishment in France of the
order of Carmelite nuns of the reform of St. Theresa of Spain.
In our own days of sober, undemonstrative, rational religion, it
is not easy to comprehend the eagerness of French Catholics in
the seventeenth century to introduce into the kingdom this
extreme type of cloistered asceticism. The highest and noblest
in the land were ardently engaged in the scheme. Princesses
of the blood-royal were among its chief promoters. Catherine,
Antoinette, and Marguerite, daughters of the Duke of Longue-
ville by Marie de Bourbon, Duchess of Estouteville, though
nurtured amid the luxuries and fascinations of a court, were
models of devout piety and active charity. Two of them had
* Vie de S. Fr. de Sales, par le curé de S. Sulpice, tom. i. Liv. iii. p. 407.
A.D. 1602. THE REFORMED CARMELITES IN FRANCE. 241
formed at an early age the resolution to lead a single life; the
third, Antoinette, was married to Charles de Gondi, Marquis
of Belleisle; but, upon his death, she renounced the world for
the cloister, and took the veil in the Feuillantine convent at
Toulouse. These three princesses were naturally looked up to
as the patronesses of every new design for the advancement of
Catholicism in France;—a distinction which they shared, how-
ever, with many other personages of exalted station,-their
sister-in-law Catherine de Gonzague, Duchess of Longueville,”
Anne de Caumont, Countess of St. Pol, Catherine of Lorraine,
Duchess of Nevers, the Duchess of Mercoeur, Madame de
Magnelais, and others, whose names will occur in our subsequent
pages. But the person who became the most direct instrument
in the adoption of the reformed Carmelite rule in France was
Barbara d'Avrillot, wife of Pierre Acarie de Villemor, one of
the maitres des comptes at Paris. Nature had endowed this
lady with extraordinary energy and force of character; and she
exhibited from her youth upwards a pattern of every domestic
and social virtue. During the convulsions of the League it was
her lot to endure trials and privations of no common severity;
and it was mainly owing to her admirable management—her
prudence, activity, and courage—that her husband and family
were saved from utter ruin. Madame Acarie enjoyed the
highest consideration in the religious Society of Paris. She was
consulted like an oracle, and was believed by her friends to
enjoy the privilege of special communications from above.
Under her auspices the introduction of the Carmelites was now
discussed in frequent conferences, the three princesses of Longue-
ville being constant attendants at these meetings, together with
François de Sales, the Abbé (afterwards Cardinal) de Bérulle,
M. de Marillac, and André Duval, an eminent doctor of the
Sorbonne. Upon their solicitation the necessary letters patent
were granted by the Crown; but it was found a matter of great
difficulty to obtain the services of some professed sisters of the
* Widow of Henry of Orleans Duke
of Longueville. In gratitude for the
recovery of her son after a dangerous
accident, she founded in 1617 a second
Carmelite convent in the Rue Chapon,
which she liberally endowed. The
young duke afterwards married Anne
VOI. I.
Généviève de Bourbon, who was the
celebrated Duchess of Longueville of
the Fronde.
f Duval Wrote a biography of
Madame Acarie : La Vie de Saewºº Marie
de l’Incarnation, par le P. Duval. Paris,
1621.
R
242 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
order from Spain, whose presence was deemed essential to
the foundation of the institution at Paris. The obstacle was
at length surmounted through the self-denying exertions of the
Abbé de Bérulle, who made a journey to Spain for the purpose ;
no trifling undertaking in those days. In October, 1604, six
Carmelite nuns arrived at Paris, and were installed in a con-
ventual building which had been prepared for them in the
Faubourg S. Jacques; the ancient priory of Notre Dame des
Champs, a dependency of the great Abbey of Marmoutier.
Shortly afterwards Queen Marie de Medicis visited the convent
in state, with the princesses and a brilliant train; on which
occasion seven ladies, who had been carefully disciplined in all
the usages of the rule under the Superintendence of Madame
Acarie, made their profession, and assumed the habit of the
Order. One of them was Charlotte, Marquise de Breauté,
daughter of De Harlai de Sanci, one of the favourite ministers
of Henry IV.” It was not long before this example was fol-
lowed by other devout women of the higher ranks;–the three
daughters of Madame Acarie, a daughter of the Duc de Brissac,
Madame de Chandenier, sister of Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld,
and Madame de Bérulle, daughter of the President de Séguier,
and mother of the future Cardinal. *.
The French Carmelites increased rapidly in numbers and
reputation. So early as the year 1605, two additional convents
were founded, one at Pontoise, the other at Dijon; and in the
course of a few years similar communities were established at
Amiens, Tours, Rouen, and Bordeaux. By the close of the
century the Order possessed no fewer than sixty-three houses
in different parts of France.j
Pope Paul V., by a brief of April 17, 1614, placed the Car-
melite sisterhoods in France under the government of three
ecclesiastics, De Bérulle, Gallemand, and Duval; the first-
named being appointed Visitor-General. This arrangement
gave rise to considerable dissatisfaction, inasmuch as hitherto
the Superiors of the Carmelites had always been members of
* See the life of the “Möre Marie de Jacques, elected in 1616, and re-elected
Jésus,” in the appendix to M. Victor several times.
Cousin's Jewnesse de Madame de Lon- f W. Cousin, Jewnesse de Madame de
gueville. She was the second prioress Longueville, p. 335,
of the convent in the Faubourg S.
A.D. 1620. THE REFORMED CARMELITES IN FRANCE. 243
the same monastic Society, and bound by the same vows, with
those who were subject to their rule.* The convent of Bordeaux
raised the standard of opposition; the nuns renounced De
Bérulle as their visitor, and were supported in their opposition
by Cardinal de Sourdis, Archbishop of Bordeax, who declared
that they were lawfully subject to the Superior-General of the
Carmelites, and to him alone. The nuns of Saintes, Limoges,
Bourges, and Morlaix hastened to imitate their ecclesiastical
sisters; the dissension widened rapidly, and assumed the aspect
of a serious scandal. De Bérulle appealed to Rome; and in
due time two briefs arrived from Gregory XV. (March 20, Sept.
12, 1620) confirming the original appointments, and enjoining
the Carmelites to submit without further question. Even this was
not at once effectual. The refractory nuns, instigated by secret
agitators, appealed, comme d’abus, to the Parliament; a step
which in all probability would have protracted the contest for a
length of time, but that the Government now interfered, and
two peremptory arrêts of the Council of State (Sept. 16, Dec.
15, 1620) enforced the execution of the Pope's briefs, notwith-
standing the appeal to the secular courts. Summary measures
followed. Cardinals de la Rochefoucald and La Valette, were
charged with the duty of giving effect to the orders of the Holy
See, and they deputed as their commissioner a doctor of the
Sorbonne named Louytre, a man of few scruples and determined
vigour. He forthwith repaired to the Carmelite house at
Bourges, and, the nuns having refused to make submission, he
passed sentence of excommunication on them all. Firm in their
purpose under this extreme penalty, they quitted their convent
and their native land, and sought an asylum in the Nether-
lands. Similar rigours were exercised towards the Carmelites
* D'Avrigny (Mém. Chronol., tom. i. strongly towards the system which
p. 30 et seqq.) describes this affair of was afterwards known as Quietism. It
the Carmelities in a somewhat satirical is certain, however, that the mysticism
vein, insinuating that Madame Acarie of St. François Was no mere state
was but a visionary enthusiast, and of passive contemplation; his was not
treating De Berulle in the same style. a religion which dispensed with good
No doubt Madame Acarie, as well as works and ignored external ordinances.
other disciples of François de Sales, had | D'Avrigny, as a Jesuit, cannot al-
imbibed largely the spirit of their together divest himself of party pre-
master, whose theology was decidedly judice in this matter; De Bérulle, in
that of the mystical school. His theory particular, having been an object of
of the love of God, and of the commu- jealous dislike to the Order.
nion of the Soul with Him, tends
R 2
244 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
of Bordeaux and of S. Pol de Léon in Brittany. In the latter
case Louytre went so far as to lay the Cathedral Church under
an interdict, and to suspend the bishop of the diocese from his
functions, because certain novices had been admitted at the
excommunicated convent with his sanction. These violent pro-
ceedings led to further troubles. The bishop complained to
the Assembly of the Clergy; the latter passed a resolution
denouncing the intolerant conduct of the Papal Commissioner,
and sent a circular letter to their colleagues throughout France
desiring them to exclude the offender from communion when
he visited their diocese, until he had given public Satisfaction
to the Church, and in particular to the Bishop of St. Pol de
Léon. The Pope (Urban VIII.) now interposed, and annulled
the declaration of the clergy. The clergy remonstrated, and
asked permission to hold a National Council; and matters
began to look so threatening, that Louis XIII. found it neces-
sary to intercede with the Pope in behalf of the indignant
Gallican priesthood, who on this, as on So many other occasions,
made a gallant stand in defence of the true principles of eccle-
siastical discipline. Urban yielded to the king's representa-
tions; Louytre was instructed to apologize to the bishops, which
he seems to have done with a bad grace and in a tone of self-
justification rather than of humility; and in 1625 this unseemly
strife was at last brought to a conclusion. The excommuni-
cated nuns were absolved, but were compelled nevertheless to
take up their residence in Flanders. Those only were allowed
to remain in France who had accepted the government by De
Bérulle and his successors imposed on them by the Roma
See.* --
It would appear that the whole of this disturbance was the
Secret work of the Jesuits. In their jealousy and spite against
the Oratorians, of which congregation De Bérulle was Superior-
General, they stirred up the Carmelites to contest the injunc-
tions from Rome, hoping that the result might be detrimental
to the influence of the rival Order. “Ces choses,” wrote De
Bérulle to Cardinal Richelieu, “sont plus dignes de larmes que
de paroles.”f
* D'Avrigny, Mem. Chronol, tom. i., quoted at length by Guettee, Hist, de
p. 38. & l'Egl. de France, tom. x. p. 77.
f See his letter to the cardinal,
A.D. 1614. . MADAME ACARIE. - 245
Madame Acarie, having been left a widow in 1613, deter-
mined to devote the remainder of her life to God as a professed
nun of the Carmelite Order. Her sons were grown up, and her
daughters, as we have seen, already inmates of the cloister; and
being thus freed from secular ties, she no longer resisted the
yearnings of her heart after the cultivation of ascetic virtue in
what she considered its most perfect form. She took the veil in
the convent at Amiens in April, 1614, under the name of Soeur
Marie de l’Incarnation, and made her profession in the follow-
ing year. In this new state of life she became a bright example
of Christian humility, self-sacrifice, and holiness; but her
health, always feeble, gave way under the austerities which she
daily practised, and which she could not be persuaded to relax.
She breathed her last at the convent of Pontoise, in the odour
of sanctity, on the 18th of April, 1618. Her extraordinary
reputation for piety, and the prodigious influence she had exer-
cised on the religious movement of her time, procured for her
conspicuous tokens of honour after death. Her tomb at Pon-
toise was visited by Queen Anne of Austria, by the Queen
Dowager Mary of Medici, by François de Sales, by Madame de
Chantal, and by a multitude of less illustrious pilgrims. Soeur
Marie de l’Incarnation was beatified” by Pope Pius VI, May
24, 1791.
Another proof of the revival of religious zeal in the same
direction was the institution, in 1607, of the “Congregation des
Filles de Notre Dame” by Jeanne de Lestonnac, Marquise de
Monferrant. This was a sisterhood devoted to the education
of young females; an undertaking of urgent necessity at that
time, since the Huguenots had made emergetic efforts for the
instruction of the rising generation, and had lured away numbers
of young Catholics from their Mother Church, especially in the
Southern provinces. There were then at Bordeaux two Jesuit
missionaries who had acquired a high reputation by their
labours, and had been the means of numerous conversions to
the faith among the Protestant sectaries. They had long felt
the importance of systematic exertion in the work of education;
* Beatification is the preliminary limitations; but he is not definitely
step to canonization. It declares the added to the catalogue of the Saints,
individual to be among the number of and has no day assigned to him in the
the blessed, and permits the faithful to calendar.
honour him religiously, with certain
246 - THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
they saw, with dismay, that through the negligence of the
Church in this branch of her duty, the early training of
the young, especially of young females, was fast passing into the
hands of the Huguenots; Catholic parents being almost com-
pelled, through dearth of competent teachers in their own
communion, to entrust their children to the separatists, who of
course imbued them with their own misbelief. It seems to have
struck the two Jesuits suddenly and simultaneously that Madame
de Lestonnac (whom as yet they knew only by report) was one
eminently fitted to take the lead in some attempt to remedy this
evil. The proposal, when made to her, coincided exactly with
her own long-cherished aspirations, and was at Once gratefully
embraced. There were obstacles to be encountered, however,
in the execution of the design. The Court of Rome was at
this time disposed rather to diminish than to increase the
number of religious houses; and Cardinal de Sourdis, Arch-
bishop of Bordeaux, when applied to for his sanction, proposed
to Madame Lestonnac, instead of founding a new Order, to un-
dertake the restoration of an existing Ursuline convent, which
of late years had fallen into decay. This she declined. Ere
long the Cardinal's sentiments underwent a sudden change;—
a change which he felt to be so extraordinary, that he was com-
pelled to attribute it to a directly supernatural interposition.
|He now cordially approved Madame Lestonnac's scheme, and
recommended it so strongly at Rome, that the bull for carrying
it into effect was despatched without further difficulty. The
new community was established forthwith, and adopted the rule
of St. Benedict. In its internal Organization it was formed
upon the model of the Society of Jesus; its rules and discipline
being identical with those prescribed by Ignatius Loyola, with
such slight variations as were required by reason of the differ-
ence of the sex and occupation. On the 1st of May, 1608,
Cardinal Sourdis bestowed the veil and habit of the Order, with
all solemnity, On the foundress and four other ladies whom she
had trained as her associates. The letters patent were granted
by Henry IV., at the special request of Marie de Medicis, in
March, 1609. Such was the origin of the “Congregation de la
bienheureuse et toujours Vierge Mère de Dieu Notre Dame;”—
the earliest religious foundation in France devoted to female
education. The work prospered from the beginning, and pro-
A.D. 1609. THE VISITANDINES-MADAME DE CHANTAL. 247
pagated itself with wonderful rapidity. In the course of a few
years these sisterhoods were planted in all the principal towns
of Languedoc and Gascony. Wherever they settled they
rendered invaluable services; and such was the estimation in
which they were held that in process of time they were invited
into Spain, and laboured with success in many parts of Cata-
lonia and Castille. Madame Lestonnac Survived to witness, in
a venerable old age, the remarkable progress of her pious enter-
prize. She died in 1640, at the age of eighty-four.”
It was about the same time that a kindred institution took its
rise, whose history is one of special interest, namely the Order
of Visitandines, founded by François de Sales at his episcopal
city of Annécy. Its first Superior was one of the most cele-
brated of those many Christian heroines whom that age produced
in France, Jeanne Françoise de Chantal.
This was a work which the Saintly Bishop of Geneva always
contemplated with peculiar Satisfaction, calling it “his joy and
crown.” For many years he had been meditating a scheme for
enlisting in the service of the Church females who from advanced
age or delicate health were unequal to the severer discipline of
cloistered life. Cases came under his observation in which
such persons, finding none to encourage them to systematic
exertion or to direct their energies, lost all interest in higher
objects, and abandoned themselves listlessly to habits of mere
worldliness. During a visit to Dijon, where he preached in
Lent, 1604, the Bishop first made the acquaintance of Madame
de Chantal, who had recently lost her husband, and was residing
there with her father, M. de Fremiot, a President of the Parlia-
ment of Burgundy. She had married at the age of twenty the
Baron de Chantal, of the same province, head of the ancient
family of Rabutin. The union proved happy, but was abruptly
terminated by the death of the Baron, who was accidentally
shot by a companion on a hunting expedition. Madame de
Chantal now made a vow to pass the rest of her days in a state
of devout widowhood; and in token of this life-long consecra-
tion to her Saviour, she imprinted the letters I.H.S. upon her
breast with a hot iron. In answer to her importunate prayers
that God would provide for her a guide capable of conducting
* D'Avrigny, Mén, Chronol, tom, i., p. 60, et seqq. Helyot, Hist, des Ordres
Monast., tom. vi. * $
248 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. V.
her in the path of perfection, we are told that one day she saw
before her, during a walk in the country, a figure in Soutane
and rochet, with a square cap on his head, in short, the Ordin-
ary costume of a bishop,-and heard at the same moment a
voice declaring that this was the director she was seeking, and
that upon him she might in all security repose her conscience.
No sooner did François de Sales make his appearance in the
pulpit, than she recognised the object of this superhuman
intuition; while the bishop, on his part, notwithstanding the
difficulty of distinguishing an individual among the crowd of
his hearers, became conscious of the presence of one whom
had seen in a vision before quitting his diocese, and whom he
he now knew for his destined coadjutor in the work which lay
so near his heart.* Madame de Chantal at once placed herself
under his spiritual rule ; and after some time spent in prepara-
tory discipline, the bishop unfolded to her his project for the
Order of the Visitation, and his desire that she should undertake
the office of superior. Although she received the proposal with
transport, she felt nevertheless that there were manifold obstacles
which must retard, and might altogether prevent, its being
realized. Her four children were of tender age, and maternal
responsibility weighed heavily upon her mind; added to which
her father was at this time labouring under infirmities which
made him almost wholly dependent on her filial care. For
years she waited till the way should be made clear, cherishing
an unfailing confidence that in the end her heart's desire would
be accomplished. In course of time her eldest daughter was
married to the Baron de Thorens, brother of the Bishop of
Geneva. The two younger girls were then placed by their
mother in a religious house where she was satisfied that they
would be carefully educated; and her only son, the heir of the
Rabutins, was committed to the charge of his grandfather De
Fremiot, one well fitted for the trust by his virtues and experi-
ence. Thus it came to pass that by the summer of 1610
Madame de Chantal was so situated that she could follow with
* Vie de S. Fr. de Sales, par le curé | Buckingham. His only child, Marie
de S. Sulpice, tom. i. Liv. iv. p. 494. de Rabutin, married Henri, Marquis de
# This young nobleman was killed in Sevigné, and was the celebrated Madame
1627, in defence of the Ile de Rhé de Sevigné,
against the English under the Duke of
A.D. 1610. CARDINAL DE BERULLE. 249
a safe conscience the track which she believed to be marked
out for her by Providence; and although, when the hour of
parting came, the separation from her father, her children, her
friends and attached dependents, was more severe than she
expected, and almost overcame her fortitude, she was enabled
to persevere; and after finally disposing of her property, the
whole of which she gave up to her relatives, she quitted Dijon
for Annécy in June, 1610, and entered on her new career. Her
only companions were two young ladies of good family, Jacque-
line Favre and Charlotte de Bréhard, attracted by similar
motives towards the work in hand. After completing their
noviciate, they pronounced their vows, which were simple, before
François de Sales on the 6th of June, 1611; and shortly after-
wards the Pope approved the Congregation of the Visitation,
and placed it under the rule of St. Augustine. Such was the
commencement of this famous Order, which so prospered in
the sequel, that even in the lifetime of the foundress it pos-
sessed seventy-five convents in France and Savoy. By the close
of the century the number exceeded one hundred. - - - -
Madame de Chantal died at Moulins in December, 1641, on
her return from a visit to the chateau of St. Germain, whither
she had been specially summoned by Queen Anne of Austria.
She was beatified by Benedict XIV. in 1751, and canonized in
1767 by Clement XIII.
In the history of the ecclesiastical reformation which dis-
tinguished these times, the name of Cardinal de Bérulle has
been so often mentioned as to be already familiar to the reader;
but his character and labours were too important to be passed
Over without more detailed examination. Pierre de Bérulle,
descended from an ancient family in Champagne, was born at
the chateau of Serilly, near Troyes, in February, 1575. His
father was a councillor of the Parliament of Paris; his mother
Was Louise de Seguier, aunt of the Chancellor of that name, who
flourished during the Fronde. Pierre de Bérulle was the eldest
son, and heir to the family estate; yet he determined at an
early age to embrace the ecclesiastical profession. The motives
which governed him were most disinterested. Possessed of
many worldly advantages, he was free from all taint of personal
ambition; and we are told that he privately made a vow never
to accept any preferment to which emolument was attached.
250 THE GALLICAN CHUROH. CHAP. W.
He was ordained in 1599, was appointed one of the king's
chaplains, and acted as assistant to Cardinal Du Perron at the
conference of Fontainebleau. De Bérulle rapidly acquired the
reputation of an accomplished divine; excelling as a contro-
versialist, and as a skilful guide in the confessional. The general
estimate of his powers may be gathered from a mot of Cardinal
Du Perron: “If you wish to convince the heretics, bring them
to me; if you desire to convert them, take them to the Bishop
of Geneva; but if the object is both to convince and to convert
them, you must go to the Abbé de Bérulle.”
The undertaking from which the name of De Bérulle has
acquired its chief distinction is the foundation of the French
congregation of the “Oratory of Jesus.” It has been before
observed that the state of the secular clergy at this period was
one of lamentable degeneracy. “In the rural districts,” writes
a contemporary prelate,f “the people were like scattered sheep,
without spiritual pasture, without Sacraments, without instruc-
tion, and with scarcely any external aids towards their Salvation.
Many even of the bishops thought of nothing beyond the luxu-
rious enjoyment of their revenues, and were quite negligent of
their pastoral duties. From these irregularities it followed that
the priesthood sunk into such general discredit and contempt,
that for persons of any position it was reckoned a degradation
to take holy orders, except for the sake of being able to hold
some valuable benefice. The village curés were for the most
part like those shepherds of whom the prophet speaks, who con-
tented themselves with taking the wool and the milk of the
flock, but neglected to give them that food which is indispensable
to the life of souls. Thus the people fell into such a state of
profound ignorance as scarcely to know whether or not there is
a God. Of the mysteries of the Trinity and the Incarnation
they had no apprehension whatever; nor were they at all better
instructed as to the Holy Sacraments, and the dispositions with
which they ought to be approached.” It may be hoped, how-
ever, that this picture is somewhat overcoloured. At all events
the state of things was not so Scandalous in the capital and the
great towns.
The inefficiency of the national clergy was viewed with deep
* Tabaraud, Elist, du Card. de f Abelly, Bishop of Rodoz, in his
Bérulle, tom. i. p. 33. • Life of S. Vincent de Paul.”
A.D. 1611. CARDINAL DE BERULLE. 251
concern by those admirable men who were labouring for the
restoration of the Church of France to something like its ancient
strength and power. François de Sales, César de Bus,” the
Jesuit Cotton, Vincent de Paul, Pierre de Bérulle, with others,
conferred long and anxiously together as to the means to be
adopted for raising the tone of feeling and standard of duty
among their brethren in the ministry. De Bérulle was the first
to suggest the plan of an association of priests upon the pattern
of that which had been formed in Italy under the direction of
St. Philip Neri–the members of which took no special vows,
and were not bound to practise the conventual life, but simply
devoted themselves to the fulfilment of the obligations inherent
in the Sacerdotal office, according to their true extent and
meaning. The same idea had been already conceived by Madame
Acarie, who seems to have had an instinctive persuasion that
De Bérulle was designed by Heaven to be the instrument of its
execution.f “For a long time past,” she wrote in 1606 to her
confessor F. Cotton, “I have been urging M. de Bérulle to
attempt this enterprise, but as yet he will not consent. He must
do it. Help me to persuade him of this.” The matter was
pressed upon De Bérulle from various quarters, but his charac-
teristic modesty led him to withstand, as long as it was possible,
the call to initiate such an arduous undertaking. He strove to
prevail upon others to accept the charge, addressing himself
especially to François de Sales and to Gallemant, an eminent
doctor of the Sorbonne; but the former declined it on the score
of his episcopal duties, the latter on that of his advanced age.
Thus the affair stood over from year to year; but at length, on
the combined instances of the Chancellor de Silleri, Cardinal de
Joyeuse, Gondi, Bishop of Paris, and, it is said, of the Queen
Regent herself, De Bérulle signified his readiness to commence
this “work of faith and labour of love” which the Church so
clearly demanded at his hands. On the 10th of November,
1611, he took up his abode, in company with four other eccle-
siastics, at the hotel du Petit-Bourbon, in the Faubourg S.
Jacques, on a part of the site now occupied by the Val de Grace.i.
* Founder of the “Frères de la doc- f D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronol, tom. i.
trine Chrétienne.” He laboured chiefly p. 163.
in Provence and Languedoc, and died i The Faubourg S. Jacques con-
in 1607, tained such a multitude of religious
252 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
The names of his first colleagues were Jean Bence, Jacques
Gastaud, both doctors of the Sorbonne; Paul Métézeau, one of
the most esteemed preachers of the day; and François Bourgoing,
curé of Clichy, afterwards General of the Society. The letters
patent declared the Oratory to be a house of “royal foundation.”
In October of the following year the Bishop of Paris officially
approved the statutes; and on the 10th of May, 1613, the bull
of institution was forwarded by Pope Paul W. *
The founders of the Oratory did not propose to create a new
monastic order; the object was to promote among the clergy
a spirit of combination for improvement in those studies which
became their profession, and through which alone they could
hope to glorify God and minister to the edification of His
Church. The Oratorians, whether in Italy, in France, in the
Low Countries, or elsewhere, were united by no bonds save
those of Christian charity; they undertook no duties beyond
those to which they had pledged themselves on entering the
sacred ministry. In consideration of the peculiar necessities of
the Gallican Church, they were to practise the utmost simplicity
of living, and strict self-denial with regard to worldly comforts;
they were likewise to forego all thought of ecclesiastical prefer-
ment, and to labour without remuneration. They were at
liberty to quit the Society whenever they pleased; and while
they belonged to it, they were subject, like the rest of the
clergy, to the jurisdiction of the diocesan bishops. “The spirit
houses at this period, that it acquired ont éte contraires.”
the name of the “Thebaide,” in allusion f They cherished a special devotion
to the celebrated retreat of the Egyptian to the person of the incarnate Saviour,
coenobites in the fourth century. the mysteries of His nature, the events
* The following notice of the founda- of His life, and His mediatorial work.
tion of the Oratory appears in the “Speciali religione Jesum Christum et
Mercure François for 1613, p. 288 — Beatam Virginem colunt, Illius vitam
“Sous le nom de Prêtres de l'Oratoire et mysteria in omnibus suis actionibus,
s’est établie au Faubourg S. Jacques meditationibus, et sermonibus veneran-
une nouvelle congregation. Ce Sont tous tur ut suum Patronum et totius vitae Ex-
prétres ayant des commodités, et gens emplar. Propterea Congregatio Oratorii
doctes vivant en communauté comme Jesu Christi nuncupatur, et votivis
religieux, La plus grande partie du precibus quotidie suam erga Jesum
jour ils sont en prières et meditations. Christum servitutem profitentur, et in
Ils portent la Soutane comme les pré- Scripturarum sanctarum lectione per-
tres Romains (apparently this was not petuá, Jesum Christum maximè scrutan-
the usual dress of the clergy in France tur. Sané vero ex hôc pietatis intimo
at this time) ils ont aussi un long man- affectu erga Christum elucet quaedam
teau et le collet rabattu et non haussé | Sublimis divinarum rerum scientia, quae
comme celui des Jesuites. I’lusieurs tam in libris piis quam in sermonibus
ont loué cette congregation, comme manifestatur.” — Gallia Christiana,
aussi est elle louable; et d'autres lui tom. vii. p. 977.
A.D. 1613. INSTITUTION OF THE ORATORY. 253
of this congregation,” says Bossuet, in his funeral oration for
F. Bourgoing, “is none other than that of the Church herself;
it acknowledges no other rules than her sacred canons, no other
superiors than her bishops, no other vows than those of baptism
and the priesthood. With them a holy liberty constitutes a
holy engagement; here we find obedience without dependence,
government without command; all authority consists in gentle-
ness, and penitence is maintained without the aid of fear.
EHere, in order to form true priests, they are conducted to the
source of all truth; they have the Inspired Writings constantly
in their hands, that they may seek unceasingly the interpretation
of them by study, their spirit by prayer, their depth by medita-
tion, their power by experience, their end by charity, in which
grace everything is summed up—which is the sole essential
treasure of Christianity.”* -
Tabaraud mentions f that certain prelates summoned De
Bérulle before them to give an explanation of his views in in-
stituting the Oratory. “Although,” says the biographer, “he
might have declined their jurisdiction, the pious founder replied
modestly that he had only acted according to the orders of his
ecclesiastical superior ; and when they proceeded to enquire
what were the statutes of his Congregation, he contented himself
with quoting a passage from St. Paul’s Epistle to the Philippians:
“Let your moderation be known unto all men. The Lord is at
hand. Be careful for nothing; but in everything by prayer
and supplication, with thanksgiving, let your requests be made
known unto God.” “This,” said De Bérulle, “is my rule.” The
bishops were so much struck by this response, that they forbore
to trouble him with any further questions.
The congregation of the Oratory soon gave proof of being
well adapted to meet one of the most pressing exigencies of the
time; and made rapid progress in numbers, reputation, and
commande. Si cette liberté affaiblit
d'un coté la congrégation, elle la
Soutient de l'autre, en lui procurant des
sujets qui Sont bien aises de trouver
* Thus, too, D'Avrigny, Mémoire
Chronol., tom. i. p. 163. “Quoiqu'ils
aient des supérieurs, ils n'en dependent
pas que pour le bon Ordre et la police,
chaque particulier me tenant au corps
que par des liens qu’il est toujours
maître de rompre. C'est ce qui fit dire
un jour à un grand magistrat dans un
plaidoyer, que l’Oratoire est un corps
oil tout le monde obeit, et personne me
un asile honorable oil la Vertu peut se
soutemir Sams courir la risque d'une dé-
pendance éternelle fort a charge à la
nature.”
f Histoire de Bérulle, tom. i. p.
161,
254. THE G ALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
influence. In 1616 it became necessary to move into a larger
building, and De Bérulle purchased from the Duchess of Guise,
sister of Cardinal de Joyeuse, the Hotel de Bouchage, near the
Louvre, an ancient possession of that family. Here the Orato-
rians laboured with great success, particularly among persons
of rank connected with the Court, many of whom were con-
stant attendants at their lectures, services, and “ conférences
spirituelles.” A few years later the first stone of a new church
for the Society, in the same quartier, was laid with much pomp
by the Duc de Montbazon, in the name and on behalf of
Louis XIII. It was declared one of the chapels royal, and its
clergy were entitled “chaplains of the Louvre.” This became
one of the most celebrated churches of the capital. It contained
a splendid monument to Cardinal de Bérulle, one of the finest
works of François Auguier, which was unhappily demolished at
the Revolution. After suffering shameful desecration, the church
was appropriated to the Protestants of the Genevese Confession,
by whom it is still occupied. Its graceful chevet, or apse, forms
a well-known ornament of the Rue St. Honoré.
In 1618 Cardinal de Gondi, Bishop of Paris, obtained letters
patent for converting the suppressed Abbey of S. Magloire, in
the Faubourg S. Jacques, into a seminary for the education of
priests in his diocese, and placed it under the direction of the
Fathers of the Oratory. This institution, the earliest founded
for that purpose in Paris, proved most valuable and successful.
Here laboured the accomplished Louis Thomassin, who has
enriched the Church with his masterly dissertations on eccle-
siastical discipline, on positive theology, on the doctrine of grace,
and on the history of the Councils.” Here, too, Charles Le
Cointe compiled his ponderous ‘Annales Ecclesiastici Franco-
rum, in eight volumes folio. Thomassin was succeeded in his
professorship at St. Magloire by the no less celebrated Jacques-
Joseph Duguet, whose conferences always attracted a crowded
and enthusiastic auditory.
* This latter Work of Thomassin’s
was suppressed, on account of Some
few passages which were not sufficiently
Gallican in tone as to the authority of
the Pope. “Quilm in libro hoc de auc-
toritate Pontificis tradita essent, quae
Ecclesiae displicebant Gallicae, sup-
pressus ille fuit ; nonnullis autem
plagulis mutatis, permissum est ut
liberê in lucem exiret. Quae et caussa
est, cur unustantum operis hujus tomus
in eruditorum manibus versetur.”—
yº. Bibliothec. Theol., tom. iii. p.
73. .
A.D. 1613. LABOURS OF THE ORATORIANS. 255
The Oratorians afterwards acquired a third establishment in
Paris, situated in the Faubourg St. Michel, which they styled
“L’institution.” It was devoted to the elementary instruction
of young men who presented themselves for admission to the
Congregation. -
In the three great departments of theological literature,
preaching, and clerical education, the priests of the Oratory
produced results to which the Gallican Church is deeply indebted,
and their names will ever be inscribed on some of the brightest
pages of its annals. A considerable space would be required to
give even a catalogue of these worthies. It was Jean François
Senault” who emancipated the Church from that turgid, pe-
dantic, tasteless style of pulpit eloquence, which characterized
the age of the Renaissance. Senault's discourses were refined,
intellectual, classical; and during the forty years in which he
was engaged as a preacher in Paris and the provinces, a com-
plete transformation took place among the clergy with regard
to this branch of their ministrations. Many Oratorians formed
themselves upon the model of Senault, who are more generally
known to fame than their master; and by some of these the art
of preaching was carried to the highest pitch of excellence.
Two of his most renowned disciples may be mentioned here in
passing—Jules Mascaron, Bishop of Agen, and Jean Baptiste
Massillon, Bishop of Clermont. *
But it was in the field of education—especially of education
for the ministry of the Church—that the genius of the Oratory
displayed its most brilliant colours. De Bérulle possessed in a
singular degree the faculty of attaching the minds of the young.
This spirit was emulated by his fellow labourers, and became
the leading feature of the Congregation. Their colleges and
Seminaries were filled with students, a large proportion of whom
belonged to the upper orders. In 1612 Cardinal de Joyeuse,
Archbishop of Rouen, sent thirty candidates for the ministry to
Paris to be trained by De Bérulle and his colleagues; and sub-
sequently he opened a diocesan seminary at Rouen, which he
entrusted to their management. They were next summoned
for a similar purpose to Langres, afterwards to Lyons by Cardinal
de Marquemont, and in like manner to several other cathedral
* Senault was elected General of the Oratory in 1661, and died in 1672.
256 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. W.
cities. The popularity of this great work excited ere long the
jealousy of the Jesuits, who ever since their re-establishment in
France had aimed at monopolizing the superior education of the
country. During the early part of his career De Bérulle had
enjoyed the special confidence of the fathers of that Order,
under whom he studied for some years in his youth. He had
had the courage to befriend them in their banishment—had
exerted himself personally, and through the interest of in-
fluential relatives, to procure their recall—and in recognition
of these services had received letters of affiliation from the
General Acquaviva.” But no sooner did he start the plan
of a Society which was likely to compete for the occupation of
ground which they considered exclusively their own, than the
Jesuits became his bitter opponents. They strained every nerve
to thwart his undertaking, descending for this purpose to the
meanest practices—to unblushing detraction and vulgar libels.
The strife became complicated by the subsequent course of
events. The Oratory and the Company of Jesus espoused
opposite sides of the questions in dispute in the Jansenistic
controversy; and their dissensions inflicted infinite injury on
their common cause and on their mother Church.
* Tabaraud, Hist, de Card. de Bérulle, tom. i. p. 21.
A.D. 1610. ASSASSINATION OF HENRY IV. 257
CEIAPT ER WI.
IN order to preserve a connected view of the many memorable
efforts of ecclesiastical reform which crowd the early years of
the century, we have purposely abstained from noticing the
course of political transactions during this period. It is time,
however, to turn our attention for a while to the events of
secular history, which will be found closely interwoven with the
affairs and interests of the Church of France.
Henry IV., on the eve of quitting Paris on a military
expedition, the results of which might have wrought mo-
mentous changes in the fortunes of Europe, received his death-
blow from the hand of a wretched fanatic, François Ravaillac,
on the 14th of May, 1610. Amid the profound consternation
which this sudden calamity produced among all classes of his
people, the more religiously-minded of the monarch's friends
consoled themselves by recalling the proofs which he had given,
during his later years, of concern for his spiritual welfare;
though it must be confessed that, when placed in juxtaposition
with the ordinary tenor of his life, these indications were not
altogether satisfactory. -
We learn from the testimony of his confessor, Father Cotton,
that Henry had his moments of fervent and intense devotion.
Eſe was often bathed in tears at the feet of his spiritual adviser;
and “that great soul, which knew no fear, appeared so deeply
penetrated by the thought and presence of God, that no room
was left to doubt the sincerity of his penitence. Sometimes he
would pass whole days absorbed in religious exercises, attending
to nothing and speaking of nothing but God and the means of
salvation.” Never were these sentiments of piety and anxiety
for his soul's welfare more strongly manifested than during the
last year of his life. Even in the midst of festivities and
rejoicings he was continually occupied with the affairs of
religion. Being at St. Denis on the occasion of the queen's
coronation,-the day before his death, he caused Cotton to
WOL. I. S
258 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP, WI.
accompany him into a glazed gallery, where he could witness
the ceremony without being himself seen. Here, looking down
upon the thronging crowds who filled the choir and aisles of the
church, he took the priest aside, and pointing to the vast
multitude below, “You do not know,” said he, “what I was
thinking of just now, as I surveyed this scene? I was thinking
of the last judgment, and of the account which every one of us
must then render to God.” “ St. François de Sales, between
whom and Henry there existed a warm personal regard, ex-
pressed himself in the following terms in a letter to his friend
Des Hayes:–(May 27th, 1610.)—“The happiest event in the
life of this great sovereign was that by which, in making
himself a child of the Church, he made himself the father of
IFrance; in becoming a sheep of the good Shepherd, he became
the shepherd of a densely-peopled kingdom ; and, in converting
his own soul to God, he converted the hearts of all good
Catholics to himself. It is this blessed circumstance that makes
me hope that the tender and merciful Providence of our
Heavenly Father instilled into that royal heart, even at the
last moment of life, the contrition which is necessary to a happy
death. And, therefore, I implore that infinite Goodness to
show mercy to one who showed such clemency to his fellow men,
to pardon one who extended pardon to so many enemies, and to
receive into glory this reconciled Soul, who received so many
into favour upon their reconciliation with himself.” f
Taking advantage of the outburst of national indignation that
followed the king's murder, the Parliament of Paris lost no time
in striking a blow against the Jesuits, who were popularly
presumed to be implicated in the crime. On the very day of
Bavaillac's execution, June 4, the Faculty of Theology assem-
bled at the Sorbonne by order of the Parliament, for the
purpose of confirming and renewing a decree passed by that
body, in the year 1413, against persons who maintained that it
was lawful and right, under certain circumstances, for subjects
to put a tyrant to death. This decree was occasioned by the
assassination of the Duke of Orleans, brother of Charles VI.,
and the extraordinary justification of that bloody deed by Jean
Petit, a Franciscan monk and doctor of the Sorbonne, in his
* Vie du Père Coton, par le P. Orléans, p. 142, et seqq.
f CEuvres de S. François de Sales, tom, ix. p. 197,
A.D. 1610, OUTCRY AGAINST THE JESUITS. 259
public defence of the murderer, the Duke of Burgundy. The
Faculty unanimously re-affirmed the decree in question; and
pronounced it “Seditious, impious, and heretical, to lay hands
upon the sacred persons of kings and princes, upon any pretext
whatsoever;” and all doctors and bachelors of divinity were
enjoined to bind themselves by a solemn oath to uphold and
teach this doctrine.
Eour days later the Parliament issued an arrêt condemning a
notorious publication of the Spanish Jesuit Mariana, entitled
‘De Rege et Regis Institutione.’ This was sentenced to be
burnt by the common hangman, as containing “many execrable
blasphemies against the late King Henry IV., and against the
persons and states of kings and sovereign princes.” It was
true that Mariana had maintained, with certain qualifications,
the lawfulness of tyrannicide; f and it was pretended that
Ravaillac had imbibed from this source the detestable maxims
which had led him to lift his murderous hand against “the best
of kings.” The outcry against the Jesuits becoming louder and
more furious, Father Cotton deemed it necessary to interfere on
behalf of his vilified order; he addressed a letter to the Queen
Regent, showing that they had repudiated Mariana's doctrine
several years previously, and declaring that they accepted and
approved ea animo the recent decree of the Sorbonne. The
Bishop of Paris now came forward, and in the most public
manner testified to the innocence of the Jesuits with respect to
the charge of complicity in the death of the king ; ; and, as a
further measure of Self-exculpation, the General Aquaviva
prohibited all members of the Order, under the heaviest
penalties, from teaching or writing aught that might seem
* Bayle, in his Dictionary (under exterminare gloriosum est. Enim-
the word Mariana) says, “Il In'y a
rien de plus sedifieux, ni de plus
capable d'exposer les trônes a de fre-
quentes revolutions, et la vie même
des princes au couteau des assassins,
que ce livre de Mariana.” In one
passage Mariana, justifies in express
terms the crime of Jacques Clement
On the ground that he had ascertained
from several theologiams, whom he had
consulted, that a tyrant may lawfully
be put to death.
+ “Hoc omne genus pestiferum et
exitiale ex hominum communitate
Vero membra quædam secantur, si
putrida Sunt, ne reliquum corpus in-
ficiant, Sic ista, in hominis specie,
bestiae immanitas a Republică tan-
quam a corpore amoveri debet, ferro-
que exScindi. Timeat videlicet necesse
est, qui terret, neque major sit terror.
incussus quam motus susceptus.”
Mariana, De Rege, &c., Lib. i. p. 64.
I See, his “letire testimoniale,”
quoted by M. Cretineau-Joly, Histoire
de la Compagnie de Jésus, vol. iii, p.
- *
9. ( ,
s 2
260 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
to sanction or excuse, in the remotest degree, the atrocious
crime of parricide.” The arrêt of the Parliament contained a
clause ordering the decree of the Sorbonne against tyrannicide
to be read on the same day in every year at a public assembly
of the Faculty; and likewise to be published in all the parish
churches of the capital during divine service. The Bishop
of Paris complained of this latter injunction to the Council of
State, as an interference with his diocesan jurisdiction; and it
was in consequence Suppressed.
The Parliament, however, though silenced for the moment,
was by no means satisfied; nor did the popular ferment against
the Jesuits at all subside. In November of the same year
the Society fell once more under the lash of their enemies,
in consequence of a treatise recently put forth by Cardinal
Bellarmine, ‘De potestate Summi Pontificis in temporalibus,” in
which the Ultramontane theory was maintained as to the
superiority of the Pope over all secular potentates. This work
of Bellarmine's was a reply to one by William Barclay, entitled,
‘De potestate Papae, et quâtenus in Reges et Principes
seculares jus et imperium habeat.’ The controversy arose
originally out of the measures taken by James I. and the
English Parliament, after the Gunpowder Plot, with a view to
prevent future attempts on the part of Roman Catholics against
the king's crown and person. In the “Oath of Allegiance,”
which was then imposed upon all Catholics in England, they
were called upon to disavow, as “impious, heretical, and
damnable,” the position that “princes excommunicated or
deprived by the Pope may be deposed or murdered by their
subjects, or by any other whatsoever.” It thereupon became a
question, whether an oath thus expressed could be taken by
members of the Church of Rome with a safe conscience. Upon
this point there was a division of opinion; the secular clergy,
headed by their Archpriest Blackwell, were for the most part
willing to accept the Oath ; the Jesuits, on the other hand, were
decidedly opposed to it. Reference having been made to
Rome, Pope Paul W. addressed a brief to Blackwell con-
demning the oath as unlawful, since it contained many things
* D'Avrigny, Mem, Chronolog., vol. i. p. 114. Le Vassor, IIislo.ºre de Lowis
A.III., Liv. 1, pp. 47, 48.
A.D. 1607. JAMES I. AND CARDINAL BELLARMINE. 261
contrary to faith and salvation.” In the following year, 1607,
the Pope found it necessary to issue a Second brief to the same
purpose, addressed to the whole body of English Roman
Catholics;f and this was accompanied by an expostulatory
letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to the Archpriest Blackwell, in
which the ultramontane principles concerning the Papal autho-
rity were unequivocally set forth. Upon this King James, who
was notoriously vain of his talents as an author, published an
‘Apology for the Oath of Allegiance;’ it was at first anony-
mous, but the second edition was authenticated by his name,
and prefaced by a “premonition to all Christian princes.” His
Majesty's manifesto was answered by Cardinal Bellarmine, the
most renowned controversial champion of the Roman curia;
who, following the example of his royal antagonist, appeared at
first under the nom de plume of Matthieu Tortus, and
subsequently in a treatise, ‘De Romano Pontifice, to which he
appended his name. William Barclay now entered the arena,
and attacked Bellarmine; whereupon the Cardinal rejoined by the
publication above-mentioned, ‘De potestate Summi Pontificis
in rebus temporalibus.’ This met with an indignant and
ignominious condemnation from the French Parliament. Being
denounced by the Avocat-General Servin, it was suppressed by
a decree which made it unlawful to print, sell, or possess the
book within the French dominions. The Pope's nuncio
remonstrated vehemently against this sentence, and even
threatened to leave France. The Bishop of Paris, and other
prelates, supported him; and the Council of State was at
length prevailed upon to prohibit all proceedings in the
matter, until the royal pleasure should be further signified.
The Parliamentary arrêt consequently fell to the ground. This
resolution of the Regent and her council is said to have been
due to the influence of Cardinal du Perron, who represented
that it was inexpedient at the commencement of a new reign,
* “Cum multa contineat quae fidei
et saluti apertè adversentur.”
# It appears that the party favour-
able to the adoption of the oath had
given out that the former brief was
quot genuime, or that at all events it
Was only to be regarded as containing
the advice of the Pope, and not as
conveying any command.
† This production of Bellarmine's
was placed upon the Index; by Pope
Sixtus V., as not carrying the Papal
pretensions to a sufficient length of
extravagance.
262 THE GALLICAN CHURCHI. CHAP. VI.
and during a minority, to do anything openly offensive to the
Court of Rome.
The great problems involved in the mutual relations of the
spiritual and the temporal power had now, after three centuries
of conflict, advanced many stages towards a practical solution.
The Church had relinquished, in great measure, her ancient
independence in one of its most important particulars, namely
the immunity of her ministers from the jurisdiction of the
secular tribunals. The royal courts reigned supreme in causes
which once belonged to the unquestioned cognizance of the
ecclesiastical judge. The Crown had acquired the vast privilege
of nominating directly the bishops and other chief dignitaries
throughout the realm. All official acts proceeding from the
Toman curia required to be “verified” by the Parliament, and
sanctioned by the Council of State, before they could be legally
put in execution. No bull or rescript could be published, no
canons of a Council received as binding, no legate admitted to
discharge his mission as the Pope's representative, without
undergoing this test of conformity with the maxims of the
civil constitution. Added to which, all the proceedings of
ecclesiastical authorities were kept in strict control by the
oppressive expedient of the “appel comme d’abus.” Yet, in
point of theoretical pretension, the Papacy and its defenders
Occupied nearly the same ground at the beginning of the 17th
century as in the days of Innocent III. and Boniface VIII. It
was not found easier in modern than it had been in mediaeval
times to distinguish with scientific precision the exact province
of the Crown from that of the Church. Exaggeration and
confusion prevailed on both sides of the controversy. The re-
action from such rash displays of Pontifical authority as the
excommunications of the Venetians by Sixtus IV., of Elizabeth
of England by Pius V., of Henry of Navarre by Sixtus W., and
others, led men to deny that Church censures have any force or
Validity at all, and gave rise to the system called Erastianism.
This was partially embraced by the Anglican Hooker,” and was
more fully developed by Grotius in his treatise ‘De imperio
Summarum Potestatum circa sacra.” Grotius attributes to the
* See ‘Ecclesiastical Polity,' Book viii.
A.D. 1610. RELATIONS BETWEEN CEIURCH AND STATE, 263
civil magistrate almost every ecclesiastical prerogative except the
actual functions of preaching and administering the “2raments.
He denies the legislative supremacy of the Church in matters
of faith ; subjecting its decrees to the revision of the sovereign
in the last resort. Thus to reduce one of the two Powers into
absolute dependence on the other is virtually to suppress it
altogether. But the equilibrium between them was no less
endangered by writers of the opposite School, such as Suarez,
Petau, Bécan, Bellarmine, when they assigned to the Church a
real (though indirect) control over the Sovereign in his temporal
administration, in virtue of her office as the ulliversal teacher
of faith and morals. The principle of independence is thus in
like manner subverted, and the Spiritual Element becomes in
effect Supreme; for the phrase indirect power is a mere verbal
distinction without real difference.
Bellarmine's reasoning upon the subject corresponds with
that of the more moderate section of mediaeval theologians;
whose theory has been examined in an earlier part of this work.”
The ecclesiastical and the temporal power have distinct
jurisdictions; the latter, however, is subordinate to the former.
Hence it follows that the sovereign Pontiff is superior to kings
and princes in things temporal by reason of the relation in
which these stand to things spiritual. The authority of the
Vicar of Christ extends universally over all the kingdoms of this
world, which depend upon him as the centre of unity; and
although God has not committed to him any direct, positive, or
absolute temporal dominion, yet it is evident that, in case of
necessity, he may administer and dispose of the temporal for
the benefit of the spiritual. Thus he may hinder secular
potentates from abusing their power to the injury of the
Church, from propagating heresy and Schism, and thereby
endangering their own souls and those of their subjects; and if
they prove refractory, he has the further power of excommuni-
cating them, absolving their subjects from their Oath of fidelity,
and depriving them of their dominions. At the same time
Bellarmine observes that under any and all circumstances the
murder of a prince is equally contrary to the law of God and of
the Church ; and that, in point of fact, it is a thing utterly
* See Introduction, pp. 53, 54.
264 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
unheard of since the origin of Christianity, that any Pope
should have commanded or approved the murder of a sovereign,
even were he a heretic, an idolater, or a persecutor.” These
principles the Cardinal illustrates by citing the names of many
canonists who in times past had maintained the same opinions; .
he moreover specifies instances in which princes had actually
been deposed by Popes, and the decisions of Councils by which
such depositions had been authorized. Among others he refers
to the case of Childeric, the last of the Merovingian kings, who,
he asserts, was deprived of his dominions by the authority of
Pope Zacharias; Pepin being by the same authority elevated to
the vacant throne. - 3.
The discussion was continued by John Barclay, the son of
William, who, both in his own name and in that of his father,
lately deceased, combated with much vigour and talent the
statements of Bellarmine, as regards both principle and fact.f
Temporal sovereigns, he says, are indeed subject to the Pope
and to the authority of the Church, but it is in their quality of
Christians and not as kings. The Pope's authority over them
is essentially and simply spiritual; and if he visits them with
penalties, these can only be such as may be inflicted by a
spiritual ruler, namely, penalties exclusively spiritual, not
temporal. The two powers are equal and independent, each in
its own appointed sphere; they have different ends in view, and
different means and weapons whereby to compass them. With
reference to Childeric and Pepin, Barclay contends that the
events in question were not brought about by the authority of
* It was unfortunate, however, as
Le Vassor remarks (Hist. de Louis
YIII., Liv. i. p. 93), that only so late
as the year preceding [November 9,
1609] the Inquisition at Rome should
have condemned the arrêt of the
French Parliament against the assassin
Jean Châtel.
f The title of John Barclay's work
is Publica pro regibus, et privata pro
Gul. Barclaio parente, Vindicia. Paris,
1612. William Barclay, the father,
was born in Aberdeenshire in 1546.
He emigrated early in life to France,
and studied civil law under the cele-
brated Cujacius. In his work De
reſſmo et regali potestate, he strenuously
defended the independent rights, and
even the despotic power of kings.
James I., delighted with this per-
formance, endeavoured to persuade
him to settle in England, but in vain.
He died at Angers, where he held the
professorship of civil law. The son,
John Barclay, was born at Pont-à-
Mousson in Lorraine, and was one of
the most talented men and elegant
scholars of his day. The Jesuits
laboured to entice him into their
Society, but this was prevented by his
father. John Barclay was the author
of a popular romance, entitled Ar-
génis, which describes allegorically
the political state of Europe in his
time. He died at Rome in 1621.
A.D. 1610. PREDOMINANCE OF TEIE JESUITS. 265
the Pope, but merely under his counsel and with his approval,
since it is clear that Pepin was already, and had been for years,
possessed of the reality of regal power, when he applied to
Zacharias to acknowledge him as king.
To this treatise of John Barclay's Cardinal Bellarmine did
not think proper to make any response; and the controversy
was thus permitted to drop for a time.*
With an Italian princess at the head of the government,
Italian favourites exercising the chief influence on public affairs,
and Jesuit priests occupying the highest posts of honour and
confidence, the tendency of religious feeling at the French
Court, during the minority of Louis XIII., was unmistakeably
Roman and Ultramontane. The Jesuits, finding themselves
released from the vigilant control of the great Henry, and
secure of the sympathies of the Regent and her advisers, pushed
their operations with the utmost energy in all directions, and
aimed at nothing short of complete ascendency in Church and
State. They systematically evaded the restrictions imposed on
them by the terms of their re-establishment in France; among
other things they obtained from the Queen Regent, through the
intercession of Father Cotton, permission to give public instruc-
tion in the College de Clermont, their head-quarters at Paris.
The encroachment roused the well-founded jealousy with which,
ever since its introduction into France, the Order had been
regarded by the Parliament and the University of Paris. The
verification of the letters patent was opposed by the Rector of
the University; and the Parliament named the 18th of Novem-
ber, 1610, for the hearing of the cause. When that day arrived,
however, the trial was prevented by the arbitary intervention of
the Regent, who forbade the pleadings—an injunction which
the magistrates dared not disobey. The cause was accordingly
adjourned for a year.
During this interval, a remarkable conflict occurred between
the Ultramontane faction and the defenders of the ancient
principles distinctive of the Gallican Church, the details of
which are interesting in several points of view.
Edmond Richer, Syndic of the Faculty of Theology at Paris,
* See Ellios-Dupin, Histoire Ecclesiastique du XVII. Siècle, tom. i., ann.
1610.
266 THE GALLICAN CHURCH.
CHAP. VI.
was one of the most deeply-learned scholars, as well as one of the
most estimable men, of the time. He was born in 1560, at the
small town of Chaource, in the diocese of Langres. His parents
were too poor to afford him any advantages of education, and
he quitted them at an early age for Paris, where he obtained
admittance as a pupil of the University, in return for certain
services which he rendered at one of the colleges. His talents
and unremitting application carried him rapidly through all the
lower grades of the academical career, and in his thirtieth year
he was received a Doctor of the Sorbonne. Like most young
students in those days, Richer embraced the cause of the
League, and advocated, in their fullest extent, the maxims,
political and religious, by which his party laboured to prevent
the accession of Henry IV. to the throne. He even went so far
as to justify, in a public thesis, the atrocious crime of the
regicide Jacques Clement. Upon the restoration of peace, the
young divine betook himself to a candid study of Holy Scrip-
ture, the fathers of the Church, and ecclesiastical history; and
eventually found reason to discard his early prepossessions, and
to espouse, with equal warmth, the Gallican system of church
government and discipline. Advancing steadily in reputation,
Richer was appointed Principal of the Collège Le Moine, and in
1600 was named by Henry IV. a member of the Royal Com-
mission for the reform of the University of Paris.” In January,
1608, he was elected Syndic of the Sorbonne; and in this
responsible station he soon made himself known as an uncom-
promising opponent of the Jesuitical School of doctrine, and
a fearless champion of the ancient constitution of the Church
of France. Considering the nature of the influences which
predominated at the court of Mary de Medici, such a man was
exposed to the certainty of a hostile attack from the party in
power, so soon as a plausible occasion presented itself.
In the month of May, 1611, a chapter-general of the Domini-
cans was held at the great convent of their Order in the Rue St.
* This reform of the University
was an event of no common import-
ance. The Government asserted on
this occasion its right to superintend
and regulate the entire system of pub-
lic instruction; the effect of which
was that the University was thence-
forth “socularized.” The doctrine of
the Supreme authority of the State
in this department was strongly in-
sisted on by the President de Thou
and the advocate-general Servin, when
the new statutes were formally pre-
sented to the Faculties, September 18,
1600. The same principle has pre-
Vailed ever since in France, -
A.D. 1611. EDMOND RICHER'S VETO. 267
Jacques. It was customary at such gatherings to give public
dissertations on theological subjects; and it had been resolved
on the present occasion to make what in modern phrase would
be styled a “demonstration * in favour of the absolute supre-
macy of the Pope, and other Ultramontane inventions. On the
appointed day the hall was thronged by a distinguished audi-
ence, including the young King, the Queen Regent, the Ministers
of State, the Papal Nuncio, and several prelates. The Syndic
Richer had received previous information of the purpose of this
august assembly; and since, by virtue of his office in the
University, he was bound to exercise control over religious
sentiments publicly advanced within its jurisdiction, he repaired
to the Jacobin convent, with four of his colleagues as witnesses,
and placed his official veto on the proposed thesis. Its articles
were:—1. The Sovereign Pontiff is infallible in judging on
matters of faith and of moral doctrine. 2. In no case whatever
is a Council superior to the Pope. 3. It belongs to the Pope to
determine doubtful questions, and to confirm or disallow the
decisions of Councils. The affirmative of these propositions,
said the Syndic, could not be lawfully maintained, inasmuch as
they were diametrically opposed to the decrees of the CEcu-
menical Council of Constance. Coeffeteau, prior of the convent,
at Once expressed his acquiescence,—the more readily as a
similar prohibition had been signified by the law officers of the
Crown. But Richer deemed it his duty to insist, further, that
reparation should be made to the University for the publication
of a thesis so contrary to the known tenets and authoritative
teaching of that body; and for this purpose he required that
one of the bachelors should make a speech reprobating the
views in question, and setting forth the claims of the Council of
Constance to the reverent obedience of Catholics. This was
done accordingly. The bachelor Claude Bertin ascended the
rostrum, and denounced the position that “ in no case is a
Council superior to the Pope’’ as false and heretical, inasmuch
as it contradicts the definition of the Council of Constance.
An attempt was made by the Ultramontanes to parry the force
of this argument, by questioning the authority of the Council
of Constance, on the ground that its decrees had never been
confirmed by the Pope; but Bertin, under the direction of
Richer, adduced sufficient proof that Pope Martin W. had
268 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. VI.
approved the acts of the Council; and when it was further
objected that that approval was general, and did not apply to
every decree in particular, it was rejoined that a general
approval was all that was necessary, and that the Council of
Trent itself had been approved by the Pope in precisely the
same manner as that of Constance. Cardinal du Perron, who saw
that the discussion was taking a turn which might be damaging
to the Papal prerogatives, now interposed, and, with some diffi-
culty, succeeded in putting a stop to the proceedings. -
This unexpected issue of the meeting at the Dominican
convent was sufficiently mortifying both to the Court and to
the Jesuits. The matter, however, was not destined to rest here.
The first president of the Parliament, Nicolas de Verdun, after
thanking the courageous Syndic for the good service he had
just rendered to the king and the state, requested him to draw
up a statement of the Gallican doctrine as to the authority of
the Pope; whereupon Richer put forth a treatise." De Eccle-
siastică et Politică. Potestate,’ extracted from a much larger
work on the subject, upon which he had spent several years of
laborious study. The step excited a violent commotion in the
Church, and entailed upon its author a series of troubles and
persecutions which terminated only with his life. i
This celebrated brochure consisted of no more than 30 pages
in quarto, comprising 18 short chapters.” Richer lays down as
his leading principle, that the right of ecclesiastical jurisdiction
resides properly and essentially in the whole Church, and is
exercised by the Pope and other bishops only instrumentally
and ministerially. The Church is a monarchical state, instituted
for supernatural ends, and governed supremely by the Sovereign
pastor of souls, Jesus Christ. The Pope is its ministerial head;
his authority extends, not over the Church as a collective body,
or as assembled by the representation in a General Council, but
Only over particular churches, taken singly; which, moreover,
he is bound to govern conformably with the decrees and canons
of Councils. The gift of infallibility belongs to the Church in
its corporate capacity; every individual bishop, and even the
Pontiff himself, being liable to error. The decreees and bulls
* The copy in my possession, in two | author's Defensio Libelli de ecclesiasticó
vols., 4to, Coloniae, 1701, contains, in et politică Polestate, together with
addition to the original treatisc, the other documents.
A.D. 1611. RICHER'S TREATISE. 269
of the Pope are obligatory only so far forth as they are in
accordance with the canons; his authority consists in inter-
preting and executing the canons, not in enacting them ; nor
can he impose any article of doctrine or discipline upon the
Church against Or without its consent.
With regard to political power, Richer affirms that Christ has
not conferred upon His Church any temporal jurisdiction. The
power of the sword and of physical constraint does not belong
to the Church; her sole weapons are those of spiritual censure
and excommunication. The sovereign, on the other hand, is
the legitimate defender of the laws, and, as such, has the right
to use the sword for enforcing the law ; and the Church, being
“contained in the State” (as St. Optatus says), is subject in
temporal matters to the lawful enactments of the civil power.
Appeals “comme d’abus’ are lawful, and ought to be enter-
tained by princes, in their quality of protectors of the canons.
The Church has a certain measure of indirect power in things
temporal, by reason of its spiritual authority; but in no case
can this extend to personal constraint, much less to the deposi-
tion of a sovereign from the throne.
No sooner had this little volume issued from the press, than
a perfect tempest of indignation arose among the partisans of
the opposite system, headed by the Nuncio, Cardinal du Perron,
the Bishop of Paris, and André Duval, a famous doctor of the
Sorbonne. Malicious imputations of all kinds were heaped on
the devoted author. Du Perron denounced him to the Queen
as an enemy to royalty, a traitor to the Crown of France ;
while in the same breath, with ludicrous inconsistency, he was
charged with exalting the temporal power above the spiritual,
and thereby attacking the very foundations of the Catholic
Church. On one point his enemies were unanimous — that
Richer was a man to be crushed, at any cost, and at all hazards.
No time was lost in concocting measures to depose him from
the office of Syndic of the Sorbonne. The Gallicans, however,
were numerous and influential in the Theological Faculty;
and it was difficult to find any one of the contrary opinions
who could reasonably be put forward as a competitor to the
gifted Richer. At length Jean Filesac was selected for the pur-
pose, and no exertion was spared by the Ultramontanes to
create such a majority among the doctors as might secure the
270 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. - CHAP. VI.
success of their candidate, if by any means Richer could be
driven from his post.
While these intrigues were in progress, the appeal of the
University against the Jesuits, adjourned from the preceding
year, came on for hearing before the Parliament, on the 15th
of December, 1611. The counsel for the University were
the Advocate-General Servin and Pierre de la Martelière.
The speech of the latter was a very remarkable performance,
abounding with vigorous argument, skilful rhetoric, and elo-
quent invective. Richer himself gave his assistance in pre-
paring it. “Never can we be secure,” said the orator, “so long
as these pestilent enemies of the public peace are in the midst
of us. When they first appeared, ominous predictions were
made in the very place where I am now speaking, as to their
pernicious designs, both with regard to things spiritual and
temporal. These apprehensions have been but too painfully
realised; for thirty years and more the Jesuits have fanned the
flames of civil discord throughout France; the League, which
was their work, brought upon us untold miseries; and now that
these are passing away, they are labouring to concentrate in
their own Society the entire education of the country, and, for
that purpose, to supplant and overturn the venerable University
of Paris. The Sorbonne is the main bulwark of the Gallican
Church, and of its ancient liberties; if the Jesuits could destroy
it, they would no longer have any reason to fear the condemna-
tion of their books and their doctrine. Their doctrine is most
dangerous and execrable ; according to them the Pope is ab-
solute, not only in the government of the Church, but even
in secular concerns; and kings who refuse to submit to his
supremacy are so many tyrants whom God requires to be
exterminated. What fatal evils have resulted from this dogma
It is this monstrous error which keeps in separation from the
Church so many Christian nations, who would have no repug-
nance to Catholic truth were it not that they find these ex-
travagant notions propagated as indispensable verities. So
infatuated are the Jesuits on this point, that they strive to
discredit and injure even the most Orthodox Catholics who
may decline to accept their favourite theory, and persecute
them as enemies to the Church. All means and all instruments
are lawful in their view, for the purpose of success; and by
A.D. 1611. THE UNIVERSITY AND THE JESUITs. 271
their system of mental reservations they are enabled to sub-
scribe whatever declaration may be required of them, without
conceiving themselves bound to adhere to it in practice.” Upon
these grounds La Martelière demanded that the Jesuits should
be strictly confined to the conditions laid down in their letters
of re-establishment in France; that they should never be per-
mitted, under any pretext, to impart public instruction; that
they should be compelled to conform to the tradition of the
Church of France, as opposed to the novel tenets which had
only been invented to promote their own ascendency.
The decision of the Court, as all had foreseen, was adverse
to the Company. On the 22nd of December a decree was pro-
nounced forbidding the Jesuits to interfere, directly or indirectly,
in the education of youth within the city of Paris; and in con-
sequence they were obliged to close the doors of their College
de Clermont. The Advocate-General insisted, by way of further
security, that the intrusive Fathers should subscribe a test of
orthodoxy, consisting of the four following articles: — 1. A
General Council is superior to the Pope. 2. The Pope has no
jurisdiction over the temporal power of sovereigns, and cannot
deprive them of it by excommunication. 3. A priest who be-
comes acquainted, through the confessional, with any attempt
or conspiracy against the King or the State is bound to reveal
it to the civil magistrate. 4. All ecclesiastics are subjects of
the King, and answerable to the secular Government.
These positions, it was of course well known, could not be
honestly accepted by the Jesuits, consistently with their engage-
ments with the Court of Rome. Montholon, the advocate for
the Society, remarked, somewhat to the embarrassment of his
opponents, that it would not be easy to get the four axioms in
question adopted even by the Sorbonne itself; as soon as the
Sorbonne had subscribed them, he engaged that the Jesuits
would be willing to follow their example.” The third article,
more especially, was vehemently attacked by the Papal Nuncio
and Cardinal du Perron, who declared it manifestly heretical,
and destructive of all religion. The wrath of the Nuncio
exploded in outrageous menaces. The Pope, he threatened,
would convoke a National Council to brand the teaching of
* Le Vassor, Liv. 3,
272 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
the Sorbonne as false and heretical; and in the meanwhile his
Holiness would hurl the censures of the Church upon any who
might venture to maintain the four propositions attempted to
be imposed on the Jesuits. As for the Advocate-General Servin,
he reviled him in unmeasured terms as a Huguenot, a hireling
agent of the King of England, who ought to be excommunicated
and stripped of his office, for attempting to sow jealousy and
discord between the Holy Father and the Most Christian King.”
The Jesuits, when called on to reply to Servin's demand,
stated in general terms that their statutes obliged them to con-
form to the rules of the Universities with which they were
incorporated, and that accordingly they were ready to obey
those of the University of Paris, whenever they should be en-
rolled among its members. This was, of course, a mere evasion.
In consequence, however, of the remonstrances of Du Perron
and his friends, another form of declaration was substituted;
and in February, 1612, the Jesuits signed at the registry of the
Parliament a document pledging them to accept the doctrine
of the Sorbonne with regard to the independence and personal
security of sovereigns, the maintenance of their authority, and
the liberties of the Gallican Church, as recognized and observed
from time immemorial. But this act, as the Abbé Racine
remarks, bound them to nothing at all, since it was done
without the consent of their General; which consent, as they
perfectly well knew, was essential to its validity.
The result of these proceedings was not likely to mitigate
the animosity of the contending parties. The Syndic Richer,
who had been the principal promoter of the appeal to the Parlia-
ment, became from that moment a man doomed to inevitable
ruin by the vengeance of the Ultramontanes. Their first move
was to propose a condemnation of his treatise ‘De Ecclesiastică
et Politică. Potestate’ by the Theological Faculty of the Uni-
versity; but this was frustrated by the prompt interposition
of the Parliament, which inhibited the Sorbonne from pro-
ceeding to the examination of the work, and ordered all the
copies of it to be collected and deposited in the registry of
the Court.
* See a curious account of these f Racine, Hist, Ecclesiastique, Liv.
scenes in De Wassor, Hist. de Louis X, p. 251.
XIII, Liv. iii.
A.D. 1612. RICHER'S TREATISE. 273
Failing in this, the confederates carried the matter before
Du Perron (as Archbishop of Sens) and his comprovincial
bishops, who happened to be assembled at Paris upon other
business; and here they succeeded in obtaining a censure of
the obnoxious publication, as containing many statements and
opinions which were “false, Scandalous, and, in their apparent
sense,” schismatical and heretical.” To this sentence the pre-
lates appended a saving clause, to the effect that they by no
means intended to impugn the rights of the Crown or the
“liberties of the Gallican Church.” But it is not easy to per-
ceive the exact force of this qualification, inasmuch as the
whole gist of Richer's work was to defend and enforce the very
rights and liberties to which they referred; so that the former
could not be condemned without of necessity striking a blow
(pro tanto) against the latter.
The undaunted Richer now availed himself of the legal
means of self-protection which the constitution afforded him,
and appealed to the Parliament “comme d’abus” against the
Archbishop and his suffragans. But his friends among the magis-
trates lacked either the power or the courage to support him in
this emergency. They were, probably, unwilling to hazard a
direct collision with the Court, the Bishops, and the Papal See;
and the result was that the letters authorizing the prosecution
of the appeal were refused. Thus deserted by those in whose
cause he had so manfully contended, the Syndic was compelled
at length to succumb. The importunate clamour of his enemies
extorted from the Regent letters patent for superseding him in
his office, and electing another Syndic in his place. This was
carried into execution by the Sorbonne, though not without a
sharp contest among the doctors, twenty-five of whom were
bold enough to vote against the resolution: and the persecuted
Richer, after a masterly speech in vindication of his principles,
vacated his seat, and never afterwards re-appeared at the
meetings of the Faculty. He retired contentedly into solitude,
where he devoted himself to learned study, and to the compo-
sition of many excellent and valuable works. These, however,
were not given to the world till after his death, which took
place in November, 1631.
* “Comme elles sonment.”
VOT, I. T
274. THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. W.T.
The rancorous animosity of the Ultramontanes against Richer
was not disarmed by his submission, but continued during the
remainder of his life. At one time the Duke of Epernon caused
him to be seized and confined in the prison of St. Victor, with
the intention, it is said, of delivering him over to the tender
mercies of the Inquisition at Rome. The University and the
Parliament interfered, and obtained his liberation. A dark tale
of personal intimidation and violence, to which he was sub-
jected by Father Joseph, under the orders of Richelieu, is
related by the Abbé Racine.” That terrible Capuchin, he states,
invited Richer to dinner, and pressed him to sign a retractation
of his doctrine as to the nature and limits of the Papal au-
thority. On his declining, two ruffians rushed from behind the
arras, and holding each a dagger to his breast, compelled him,
under threats of instant death, to affix his signature to the
required document. These sensational details must not be too
easily credited. The story is found in Morisot's Letters, but the
letter in which it occurs is said to be of doubtful authenticity;
while Gui Patin, who from his known prejudices might be ex-
pected to confirm it, makes no mention whatever of any attempt
at violence. There is no doubt, however, that Richer was induced
by Father Joseph and Talon, curé of St. Gervais, to give a
written explanation of his doctrine, disavowing any intention
to derogate from the just authority of the Pope, and submitting
his work to the Holy See, as the “infallible judge of truth.”f
The Parliament, though it had been deterred by motives of
political expediency from pursuing a bold course in defence
of Richer, took an early opportunity of showing that its views
as to the autocratic supremacy claimed by the Roman See
remained unchanged. Pope Paul W., perceiving that, in spite
of his repeated injunctions, the oath of allegiance still found
considerable acceptance among the English Catholics, commis-
sioned the Spanish Jesuit Suarez to write a book in support of
Ultramontanism—a service which, from his distinguished repu-
tation, was likely to be of signal advantage to the Holy See.
Suarez complied, and published, in 1613, his ‘Defensio Fidei
Catholicæ adversus errores Sectae Anglicanae; cum Respon-
* Hist. Ecclesiastique, Liv. x. p. the Archives Curieuses de l’Histoire de
298. France, 2 Série, tom. iv. Also D'Ar.
# See the Vie du Père Joseph, in gentre, Collect. Judic, tom. ii. p. 303,
A.D. 1613. CONDEMNATION OF SUAREZ. 275
sione ad Apologiam pro Juramento Fidelitatis, et ad Praefa-
tionem Monitoriam Serenissimi Jacobi Magnæ Britanniae Regis.’
The work is divided into six books. In the first and second
the author sets forth the divergence of the so-called Reformed
Religion, as professed in England, from that of primitive anti-
quity and the general tradition of the Church. In the third
he establishes the supreme and sole sovereignty of the Roman
Pontiff in the government of the Church. In the fourth he
maintains the privileges of the clergy, whom he declares to be
not amenable to the jurisdiction of secular tribunals. The fifth
demonstrates the falsehood and absurdity of the favourite Pro-
testant dogma, that the Pope is Antichrist. The sixth is occu-
pied with an examination of the oath of allegiance, which is
pronounced to be irreconcilable with the faith and obligations of
Catholics. James I, as soon as the work appeared, ordered it
to be publicly burned by the hangman in St. Paul's Churchyard,
and wrote a letter full of reproaches to Philip III. of Spain, for
harbouring one guilty of such pestilent attacks upon the rights
and majesty of kings. In June, 1614, the Advocate-General Servin
brought this treatise under the notice of the French Parliament,
and condemned it in strong language as tending to instigate cri-
minal enterprises against the Sacred persons and authority of sove-
reigns. The magistrates, after a brief examination, commanded
the book to be torn and destroyed by the hands of the execu-
tioner—a sentence which was carried into effect the next day.
Not content with this exhibition of displeasure, the Parliament
proceeded to summon to their bar four of the most eminent of
the Jesuit fathers—Armand, Cotton, Fronton du Duc, and Sir-
mond—who, on their appearance, were sternly reprimanded by
the President for having violated their engagements made two
ears before, and were ordered to obtain immediately from their
General at Rome a renewal of his command that they should
conform to the doctrine of the University of Paris as to the
authority and personal security of kings. Moreover, they were
required to contradict, in their public discourses, the tenets
advanced by Suarez; in default of which, it was added, they
would be proceeded against as traitors to the Crown, and dis-
turbers of the public peace.*
* Le Vassor, Liv. V.
T 2
276 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
The next event of importance that claims our notice is the
memorable meeting of the States-General in the year 1614.
The intrigues and dissensions of the great nobles had become
a subject of grave embarrassment to the government of Mary
de Medici. The Prince of Condé, first prince of the blood, had
taken up an attitude of threatening opposition. On the occa-
sion of the double matrimonial alliance with the Court of Spain,
which was negociated without his knowledge or consent, he had
retired from Paris, assembled his adherents, and made evident
preparations for submitting his grievances to the arbitration of
the sword. The Duc de Rohan, as leader of the Huguenots,
took steps of the same Ominous kind; and the nation seemed to
be once more on the verge of a Sanguinary civil strife. But
at the moment when matters had apparently reached a crisis,
the Court suddenly effected an accommodation with the malcon-
tent princes at S*Ménéhould, on the 15th of May, 1614; and
by the first article of the treaty then concluded, the States-
General were convoked to meet at Sens on the 25th of August.
But the Regent and her advisers, who feared that the States, if
they assembled before the young king was legally of age to
assume the government, would insist on decisive measures for
a change in the administration of affairs, contrived to postpone,
on various pretexts, the actual opening of the session until the
autumn. Louis XIII. entered on his fourteenth year, and was
declared to have attained his majority, on the 27th of September,
1614. His first act of sovereignty was to intimate his pleasure
that the government should continue, as before, in the hands of
his mother, whom he placed at the head of the Council of State.
Mary de Medici, having gained her object by this important
transaction, which established her power on the most incontest-
able foundation, caused the deputies of the three orders to
assemble in the Salle Bourbon at the Louvre, on the 27th of
October. §
The Ecclesiastical Chamber on this occasion was composed of
one hundred and forty members, among whom were five cardi-
mals,” seven archbishops, and forty-seven bishops. The venerable
Cardinal de Joyeuse, Archbishop of Rouen and Dean of the
* These were, De Joyeuse, Du | Louis de Lorraine Archbishop of
Perron, De Sourdis, François de la | Reims, a son of Henry Duke of Guise,
Rochefoucauld Bishop of Senlis, and who was assassinated in 1588,
A.D. 1614. MEETING OF THE STATES-GENERAL. 277
Sacred College, was appointed President of the Chamber. One
of the clerical delegates was Armand Jean Duplessis-Richelieu,
the same who was destined in the sequel to rule France, and
well-nigh Europe, under the title of the Cardinal de Richelieu.
He was at this time a young man twenty-nine years of age, and
held the bishopric of Luçon—a dignity which, after the lax
fashion of those days, had become a sort of apamage in his
family. -
After the customary harangues addressed to the throne, in
which De Marquemont, Archbishop of Lyons, officiated as orator
for the clergy, the three orders proceeded to the transaction of
business, the clerical deputies holding their sittings in the
refectory of the Augustinian Convent.
The first measure propounded was the reception and publica-
tion of the decrees and canons of the Council of Trent. The
same demand had been made at several former meetings, but
always with an unsuccessful result, for reasons with which the
reader is already acquainted.* The present occasion, however,
was judged especially favourable to a repetition of the attempt,
in consequence of the unbounded devotion displayed by the
Regent and her principal counsellors towards the See of Rome.
The resolution was drawn up accordingly, and the Archbishop.
of Lyons and the Bishop of Beauvais were deputed to solicit the
concurrence of the other two Orders, so that it might be presented
to the throne as the unanimous act of the States-General. The
Chamber of Nobles, after some hesitation, gave its assent; but
the Tiers-Etat was impracticable. In vain did the bishop repre-
sent that a distinct reservation was made in favour of the rights
of the Crown, the franchises of the Gallican Church, and the
privileges belonging to cathedral chapters, abbeys, and other
religious corporations. The president, without entering on any
discussion of the authority of the Council, replied in general
terms that it had remained in abeyance in France for more
than fifty years, and that it was by no means desirable to
embarrass themselves at this moment by publicly enforcing it.
Many other Councils, he observed, had never been received in
France; and, nevertheless, their labours had been duly appreci-
ated, and their directions acted upon to the advantage of the
* See chapter ii., p. 167.
278 THE GALLICAN CHURCH, CHAP. VI.
Church. He proceeded to observe, with grave irony, that it lay
in the power of the clergy themselves to carry into effect many
of the most salutary regulations of the Council of Trent. They
were quite at liberty to renounce plurality of benefices, and to
correct various other abuses which the Council had condemned.
This would be a course most edifying to the nation at large.
The good example thus given would tend no less powerfully to
the recognition of the authority of the Council than the most
solemn formal publication of it. The Tiers-Etat, to conclude,
thanked the clergy for their zeal for the interests of the Catholic
religion, and would gladly endeavour to second their good inten-
tions.
This was not a propitious omen for the unanimity of the three
chambers in their deliberations at this important juncture.
Other incidents followed, the effect of which was to aggravate
their differences; and we are assured by one historian,” that
such was precisely the result desired by the ministers and the
Court; since, the States being manifestly unable to agree among
themselves as to the measures to be recommended for the public
welfare, the Queen would be left at liberty to pursue her own
policy, and to defer or withhold all action upon perplexing and
inconvenient subjects.
When the Chamber of the Tiers-Etat proceeded, on the 15th
of December, to the consideration of its cahier, or general report
to the sovereign, an article was inserted at the head of the docu-
ment, which emphatically marks the current of feeling among
the French people upon one of the most agitating topics of the
day. The following is its substance:—“That, in order to arrest
the course of the dangerous and seditious doctrine lately broached
against sovereigns and the ruling powers ordained by God, the
king be entreated to enact, as a fundamental law of the kingdom,
that there exists no power on earth, temporal or spiritual, which
possesses any right to deprive our monarchs of their dominions,
or to absolve their subjects from the allegiance and obedience
which they owe to them, upon any pretext whatsoever. That
this statute be sworn to and subscribed by the deputies of the
States now assembled, and henceforth by all magistrates and
public officers. That all professors, public lecturers, doctors,
* Le Vassor, Histoire de Louis XIII., tom. iii, Liv. v.
A.D. 1614. MEETING OF THE STATES-GENERAL. 279.
and preachers be enjoined to enforce and defend it. That the
contrary opinion be declared impious, detestable, and wholly at
variance with the state and constitution of France, which depend
immediately on God alone. That all persons maintaining oppo-
site sentiments be declared enemies to the Crown, and violators
of the fundamental laws of the kingdom; and that if any
foreigner, whether layman or ecclesiastic, shall publish, either
by speech or writing, aught in opposition to the said enactment,
the ecclesiastics of the same order domiciled in France shall be
bound to contradict and refute the said publication, without
ambiguity or equivocation, under pain of being prosecuted as
abettors of the enemies of this realm.”
There was no mistaking the animus of this proceeding. It
was a direct blow against the Court of Rome, the Jesuits, and
all upholders of Ultramontanism. As such, it excited an outcry
of indignant alarm in the Ecclesiastical Chamber, who instantly
despatched a deputation to remonstrate with the Commons for
having presumed to frame an article bearing on religion without
first consulting the clergy, and to request that they would at
once communicate it to the other two chambers. The Tiers
attempted to justify themselves by remarking that the article in
question had no reference to doctrine, but was merely concerned
with the restoration of discipline and the correction of abuses;
but this was a transparent evasion. After much hesitation,
however, the article was transmitted to the clergy and the
nobles with a request for their concurrence. The clergy now
entrusted the advocacy of their interests to the practised hands
of Du Perron; and that veteran champion lost no time in
applying all the resources of his argumentative and rhetorical
skill to the difficult point at issue. On the last day of Decem-
ber he proceeded, in company with the Archbishops of Aix and
Lyons, to the Chamber of Nobles, where he delivered an
eloquent harangue three hours in length, insisting that the
proposed article tended to engender jealousy and discord
between the Crown of France and the Holy See, to endanger
public tranquillity, and to create both intestine division among
the different classes in France, and schism between the National
Church and the rest of Christendom. That a sovereign might
forfeit his crown through heresy or other grave delinquencies,
was, he contended, a principle generally received in Catholic
280 - TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
countries, though it had not hitherto been recognized in France;
but at all events the question was one beyond the competence
of any lay assembly, and belonged to the jurisdiction of an
CEcumenical Council. The proposition of the Tiers-Etat, added
the Cardinal, plainly emanated either from Saumur or from
England; and he concluded by announcing with great vehe-
mence, that the French clergy would rather suffer martyrdom
than set their hands to any such declaration as this measure
attempted to impose upon them.
The appeal was successful. The nobles acknowledged the
force of Du Perron's reasoning, and declared themselves ready
to combine with the clerical chamber in order to procure the
suppression of the article. Accordingly a numerous deputation
of their order attended the Cardinal and his colleagues, when,
on the 2nd of January, 1615, they made their appearance on a
similar errand before the deputies of the Tiers-Etat. —But here
their reception was decidedly unfavourable. Du Perron exerted
himself to the utmost, and in every way worthily sustained his
reputation as a polemic. He represented that questions of theo-
logical doctrine and questions of ecclesiastical discipline cannot
be separated from each other, and that both appertain exclusively
to the province of the clergy. He fully admitted the inviolable
character of the persons of sovereigns, which had been established
by the Council of Constance among many others; but suggested
that opinions concerning the deposition of kings, and the power
of dispensation from the oath of allegiance, stood on a different
footing, and, to say the least, were doubtful and conflicting. It
would, therefore, be obviously rash and unbecoming to exact a
solemn adjuration from the national representatives upon specu-
lative topics of this nature. He quoted the sentiments of the
Chancellor Gerson, and of Ockham, the “invincible doctor,”
who, though notoriously opposed in their general teaching to
Ultramontanism, yet held that monarchs, for certain grievous
crimes and misdemeanors, might justly be deposed and punished
by their subjects. “There is a wide difference,” urged Du Perron,
“between the heathen emperors of the first centuries, and those
monarchs who, in our own days, may fall into heresy or apostasy.
The former had never acknowledged Jesus Christ, nor bound
themselves by any engagement to live and die in the profession
of the Christian religion. Whereas the latter, having expressly
A.D. 1615. MEETING OF THE STATES-GENERAL. 281
declared their subjection to the King of kings, from whom they
derive their sovereignty, render themselves unworthy of the
crown if they rebel against Him, and violate the oath which
they have taken to serve Him faithfully.”
But all was of no avail. The Commons, by the mouth of
their president, Robert Miron, replied that since, by the
Cardinal's own admission, the point in dispute was “pro-
blematical,” they hoped they might without offence maintain
the view which appeared to them most in accordance with the
word of God; that their main object was to uphold the funda-
mental principle that the crown and monarchy of France are
independent of the Pope; and that they did not understand
how it could be deemed a grievance by any class of his Majesty's
subjects to declare, under the Sanction of an oath, that his
throne owes no submission to ecclesiastical potentates, and that
neither Pope nor Council can rightfully depose him for any
cause whatever. In fine, he intimated that the Tiers-Etat
could not consent to withdraw their article.
An embroilment now ensued between the different public
bodies, which at one time threatened lamentable consequences.
On the very day that Du Perron argued with such sur-
passing ability before the assembled nobles, an application
was made upon the same subject to the Parliament by the
Advocate-General Servin. Considering that the Court had at
various times published decisions concerning the Supreme
authority and independence of the Crown, it was contrary to
law, he contended, to re-open discussions upon a matter already
determined; he therefore demanded that the several decrees
referred to should be re-published, with a positive prohibition of
further debates on the subject in any quarter whatever. The
motion was immediately granted; and the clergy, rightly
interpreting it as levelled against themselves, hastened to
petition the king against the proceedings, as an infraction of
the privileges of the States-General;-a step in which the
Chamber of Nobles concurred. The Council of State met
without delay; and after hearing a speech from the Prince of
Condé, who recommended a policy of conciliation, it was
* Memoires du Clergé de France, tom. xiii. p. 315.
t This speech is reported by D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronol., tom. i. p. 221.
282 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
resolved on the one hand to admonish the Chambers to refrain
from further discussion of the points of difference that had
arisen between them, and on the other, to forbid the execution
of the arrêt of the Parliament. An order of Council to this
effect was issued on the 7th January. Meanwhile the “Loi
fondamentale” of the Tiers-Etat had been printed and widely
circulated throughout France. Its appearance was followed by
a shower of pamphlets and manifestos on both sides of the
question; among the rest was one from the royal polemic
James I., who manfully defended the English “Oath of allegi-
ance” against the aspersions of Cardinal du Perron.
The clergy, however, were not satisfied with this decision,
although it virtually settled the matter in their favour. They
required that the contested article should be expunged from the
Cahier of the Tiers-Etat; and threatened that, unless this were
conceded, they would close their sittings and withdraw from
further participation in the proceedings of the States. The
nobles supported them in this peremptory demand ; and the
Court finally yielded to their combined pressure. A royal
message was sent to the Tiers-Etat, commanding them to remit
to the king in person the article which had raised such a storm
of opposition;–an order which amounted to its suppression.
The chamber obeyed; the president, at the head of a depu-
tation, waited on the king at the Louvre, and was informed that
there was no need to insert the article in their official
Cahier—that the king took it as already received, and would
return an answer to their satisfaction. When the president
made his report to the chamber, a tumultuous debate arose, and
was protracted for three days, upon the question of acquiescence
in this act of coercion. A numerous minority voted for
resistance; but in the end a compromise was effected, and it
was agreed that the article should not be maintained textually
in the Cahier, but that its intended place should be distinctly
reserved, with a statement that it had been presented by
anticipation to the king in person, at his express command, and
that his Majesty had promised to consider it favourably, and to
reply to it as soon as possible.
Such was the termination of this remarkable dispute; which
sets in a very instructive light the prevailing dispositions and
conflicting pretensions of the three orders in the State at this
A.D. 1615. SUMMARY OF PROCEEDINGS. 283
somewhat obscure period of French history. The want of con-
fidence which reigned between the popular representatives and
the privileged orders; the perplexing position of the clergy, in
consequence of the exorbitant claims of the Court of Rome; the
determination of the Parliament to repress every attempt on
the part of a foreign ecclesiastical power to interfere in the
secular concerns of the kingdom ; the glaring public abuses,
vehemently attacked by one party, and defended with equal
pertinacity by another from motives of Sordid interest; the
incapacity of the constitutional legislature to exercise a wise,
sustained, effective control over the government of the nation;
—these are truths emphatically attested by the records of the
States-General of 1614; and the lesson was no doubt clearly
apprehended by Sagacious and far-sighted observers at the time.
With such fatal defects and disqualifications, it is not wonderful
that history has but a sad tale to tell as to the influence of the
States-General upon the destinies of France. No further
explanation is needed of the significant fact, that for more than
a century and a half the States were never again summoned
for the discharge of their functions; and that when at length
they were convoked in 1789, their proceedings precipitated the
nation into the abyss of anarchy and revolution.
Pope Paul W. despatched briefs to the Cardinal de Joyeuse,
the ecclesiastical chamber, and that of the nobles, in which,
after extolling the wisdom, piety, and firmness which they
had displayed in resisting the late dangerous attack on the
authority of the Apostolic See, his Holiness warmly expressed
his gratitude for the service they had rendered to the Church
on that trying occasion. -
After lengthened delays and manifold remonstrances, the
Cahiers of the three chambers were finally sent in on the 23rd
of February, 1615; on which day the session was closed. The
budget of the clergy consisted of 302 articles, twenty-four of
which were adopted in common with the Chamber of Nobles.
The following were their principal recommendations:—That
the decrees of Trent should be received and executed in France,
as before mentioned ; that the Catholic religion should be
re-established in Béarn, as in all other parts of his Majesty's
dominions; that the decree of the Council of Constance on the
personal Security of kings be re-published and enforced ; that
284 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
the “Cours Souveraines” be prohibited from taking cognizance
of any matter affecting the faith and discipline of the Church, or
the authority of the Pope in its relation to the Crown—all such
questions being reserved to the jurisdiction of the king in
council. They desired further, the appointment of a royal
commission to define the limits within which Secular courts may
interfere with the ecclesiastical jurisdiction by means of the
“appel comme d’abus;” an authoritative exposition of the
much-contested “liberties of the Gallican Church ;’ the reform
of the Universities; and certain changes in the composition of
the Council of State. A special article was moreover inserted
in favour of the Jesuits; in recognition of whose “continual and
important services to the Church,” the king was requested to
license them to teach publicly in the Collège de Clermont, as
well as in all provincial towns which might express a desire for
their instructions. A last attempt was made to obtain the
concurrence of the Tiers-Etat in the clauses relating to the
Council of Trent and the Jesuits; but without success.
At the audience of prorogation at the Louvre, the Bishop of
Luçon (Richelieu) made his appearance as Orator for the
clergy; and the harangue which he delivered on this occasion,
apparently his earliest public effort, left the impression on his
auditory that he possessed political genius of first-rate order,
and could not fail, Sooner or later, to attain a towering ascen-
dency both in Church and State. It is curious to observe that
the future minister grounded this discourse upon One predomi-
nant idea or principle—the necessity of restoring to the clergy
the active share in the management of public affairs which they
had enjoyed from the earliest ages of civilization. The times,
he said, when his Majesty's predecessors had employed the
prelates of the kingdom in the concerns of State were those in
which the Gallican Church had flourished in its greatest glory.
Since that practice had been discontinued, the clerical order
had degenerated to such an extent that its ancient character
was no longer to be recognized. It seemed now to be imagined
that, because bishops were consecrated to the service of the
* The “cours souveraines” were were so named because they were
the Parliaments of Paris and the pro- | (theoretically and constitutionally )
vinces, the Grand Conseil, the Cour independent, and not subject to the
des Aides, the Chaumbre des Comptes, revision of any superior tribunal.
and the Cour des Monnaies. They
A.D. 1615. SPEECH OF RICHELIEU. 285
King of kings, they were incapable of rendering effective
service to their earthly sovereign. “More than this,” con-
tinued the prelate, “although the clergy offer to their sovereign
what every other Christian offers to God, namely, the tenth
part of their property, attempts are constantly made to deprive
them of all the rest, and that in favour of persons who cannot
lawfully possess it, being either laymen or avowed separatists
from the Church. Is it not plainly contrary to justice to give
to the world that which belongs to God, instead of sacrificing
to God that which appertains to the world? It may seem
perhaps but a small thing to present a layman or a sectary to
an abbey, but when it is considered that the patronage of the
greater part of the parochial cures in France is annexed to
the abbeys, it becomes clear that this is the principal cause of
the corruptions and disorders which afflict the Church. A mere
courtier is not likely to nominate devout and holy pastors, and
an enemy to our faith will be only too glad to do it an injury
by preferring men of ignorant minds and disreputable life.
Sire, this is a grave abuse; an abuse that entails the ruin of
innumerable Souls, for the loss of whom you yourself must one
day answer before the tribunal of God.” Proceeding next to
touch on the “appels comme d’abus,” Richelieu cites the
canons of Councils, the testimonies of primitive Fathers, and
the decrees of Christian emperors, such as Constantine and
Charlemagne, to prove that ecclesiastical jurisdiction cannot
lawfully be exercised by any but ecclesiastical judges. “All
good sovereigns,” he urged, “have been scrupulously careful to
maintain the spouse of Christ in the enjoyment of her proper
authority; and your Majesty will observe that this is a duty
incumbent upon monarchs, not only as a point of conscience,
but also for their personal interests; since it is certain that a
prince cannot more effectually teach his subjects to despise
his own authority, than by permitting them to encroach upon
that of God, from whom he holds his crown.” “
After an earnest appeal on behalf of the publication of the
Council of Trent, Richelieu concludes by eulogising the young
king's wisdom in delegating the chief authority of government
to the queen-mother. He exhorts him to persevere in this line
* Memoires du Clergé de France, tom. xiii. p. 395 et Seqq.
286 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
of policy, and to “add to the title of Mother of the King, that
of Mother of the Kingdom.” This was a dexterous stroke
for the advancement of his own fortunes. Attaching himself
to the party of Mary de Medici and the Maréchal d'Ancre,
Tichelieu now rose rapidly to power. His first court appoint-
ment was that of private chaplain to the young queen consort,
Anne of Austria. In November, 1616, he was named a member
of the Council of State, and Secretary of State for War and
Foreign Affairs. - -
Disappointed on this, as on so many former occasions, of
obtaining satisfaction from the Government with regard to the
publication of the Tridentine decrees, the clergy resolved to
take measures to that end among themselves, so far as it lay in
their power, independently of the civil authority. The prelates
held a meeting immediately after the dismissal of the States-
General, and entered into a solemn engagement to observe the
canons and Ordinances of the Council, and to enforce their
execution to the utmost of their power throughout their
dioceses. It was further agreed that provincial Councils and
diocesan synods should be convoked during the year ensuing,
in order that the measure might be adopted throughout the
kingdom in due canonical form. The episcopal manifesto bore
the signatures of three cardinals (La Rochefoucauld, Du Perron,
and De Gondi), seven archbishops, forty-five bishops, and thirty
other dignitaries. The step, however, was not allowed to pass
unchallenged by the watchful guardians of the civil jurisdiction.
An order was issued by the Prevöt of Paris,” forbidding all
ecclesiastics to make publication of the Tridentine decrees as
if officially received, or to introduce any change whatever in
matters of church discipline without the king's permission, under
pain of forfeiting their temporalities. The Huguenots also
raised a violent clamour against the publication of the Council;
and the prince of Condé, who had lately allied himself with
them in consequence of a fresh misunderstanding with the
court, expressly stipulated, in making terms with the Govern-
ment, that this demand of the bishops should not be carried into
—x
* The Prevót of Paris was the head | He presided as judge in a court which
of the metropolitan police, his office held its sittings at the Châtelet. His
answering very nearly to that of the jurisdiction comprised the city of Paris
“Préfet de Police ’’ of modern times. and the “Isle de France.”
A.D. 1616. ANTONIO DE DOMINIS. 287
effect. By an article of the treaty of Loudun (May 3, 1616),
the king declared that no steps had been taken by authority for
the recognition of the Council; and that it would remain, with
regard to France, in the same position as heretofore.” Under
these circumstances, the prelates judged it inexpedient to hold
the provincial Councils which had been agreed upon at the
meeting at Paris, since a pretext might thus have been afforded
for fresh disturbances on the part of the separatists and the
disaffected princes. Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, however,
assembled his clergy at a diocesan synod at Senlis in October,
1620, when it was resolved that the Council should be received
and observed in that diocese, not only touching matters of faith,
but also in its decrees concerning the Sacraments of orders,
penance, and marriage, the residence of the clergy, the rules of
admission into conventual houses, and other important points
of discipline. Similar measures were adopted by a provincial
council held at Bordeaux under the presidency of Cardinal de
Sourdis in 1624; and regulations of the same nature were made
by several other bishops for the guidance of their own clergy.
In this manner the greater part of the Tridentine constitutions
were gradually received, in an indirect and informal way; but
every effort to get the decrees incorporated with the body of
national statute law was firmly and successfully resisted by the
civil power.
The slumbering controversy concerning the government of
the Church and the supremacy of the Pope was revived in 1617
by the appearance of a work by Antonio de Dominis, Arch-
bishop of Spalatro, the first volume of which was published that
year in London.
De Dominis was a man of great natural capacity, and,
having studied for many years in early life under the Jesuits,
had acquired a considerable store of learning. His temper of
mind, however, was singularly vacillating ; he forsook the
Jesuits, made interest for preferment in the Church, and
obtained the archbishopric of Spalatro, the capital of Dalmatia.
He now became involved in the affair of the Interdict of
* The famous article of the Tiers- I urgent instance of the Capucin father
Etat on the independence of the Crown Joseph. See the details of this intrigue
was at first inserted as one of the in the Vie du Père Josef, in Arch. Cur.
conditions of this treaty ; but Condé de l’Eſist, de France, 2 Serie, tom. iv.
was induced to abandon it at the
288 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VI.
Venice; and stood forward conspicuously in defence of the
Republic against the oppression of the Court of Rome. The
Inquisition naturally passed a sentence of condemnation on his
writings: and this censure irritated and disgusted the arch-
bishop to such a degree that he quitted his see and retired into
England, as a place of refuge where he might publish his
sentiments without fear of persecution. James I., attracted
by his professions of admiration for the Anglican Church, and
credulously accepting him as a genuine convert from the errors
of Rome, showed him flattering attentions, and preferred him to
the Mastership of the Savoy and the Deanery of Windsor.
Thus protected, De Dominis put forth his treatise ‘De
Republică Ecclesiastică, which is based mainly on the same
principles which had been so powerfully advocated by the two
Barclays and Edmond Richer, but at the same time differs from
them in some notable particulars. De Dominis entirely denies
the supremacy of the Roman Pontiff as the vicar of Jesus
Christ; according to him, the Church is not a monarchy but an
oligarchy, the authority of government being exercised co-
ordinately by all members of the episcopate. And even the
bishops do not derive from their consecration any direct and
exclusive authority from God; consecration is no more than a
ceremony through which they become qualified to exercise
ministerially that power which is vested of right in the whole
Christian society, laity as well as clergy. From these positions
he argues that the Papacy, with all its lofty prerogatives, is
simply anti-Catholic and antichristian. Nicolas Isambert,
syndic of the Sorbonne, impeached the book before the Faculty
at Paris on the 30th of October, pointing out its peculiarly
insidious and dangerous tendency, inasmuch as the author gave
out that his views were identical with those maintained by the
University of Paris. After a series of animated debates, a list
of propositions extracted from the work was condemned by a
majority of the doctors; but a strong minority protested against
the decision. The ex-syndic Richer was earnestly entreated by
his friends to come forth on this occasion from his retirement,
and, by participating in the vote of his colleagues, to refute the
imputations of heterodoxy under which he had laboured for
the last five years. He yielded only so far as to draw up some
notes upon the sentence of the Sorbonne when it was published,
A.D. 1617. ANTONIO IDE DOMINIS. 289
from which it appeared that he could but partially concur in
the conclusions of his brethren on the questions in debate.
The second proposition of De Dominis, for instance, which
asserted that the Church possesses no secular jurisdiction, no
coercive power or right of external constraint, was pronounced
by the doctors heretical, subversive of hierarchical authority,
and tending to produce confusion in the Church. Richer was
unable to accept this language, which he considered over-
strained and unjustifiable, a feeling which was strongly shared
by the Advocate-General Servin. -
The subsequent career of De Dominis was painfully ignoble
and humiliating. After residing several years in England, he
seems to have grown dissatisfied with the Reformed com-
munion; and, through the medium of the Spanish ambassador
in London, he effected a reconciliation with the See of Rome.
Being thereupon deprived of his English preferments, he
returned to the continent ; and, with his characteristic in-
Constancy, began to write in a violent strain against the Church
which had sheltered and befriended him in the hour of
adversity. But his turbulent spirit was incapable of repose.
On reaching Rome he retracted in unqualified terms the errors
and mistaken reasonings with which he confessed that his works
abounded, and professed abject submission to the judgment
of the Supreme Pontiff. Before a year had passed, it was
discovered, from an intercepted correspondence with friends in
England, that he already repented of his repentance, and was
engaged in intrigues contrary to the Papal interests. Upon this
he was arrested and imprisoned in the Castle of St. Angelo,
where within a very brief space he once more declared himself a
convert to the Romish faith. He was not, however, restored to
liberty, but died in confinement, after receiving the Sacraments
of the Church, in December, 1625. To complete this grotesque
history, it must be mentioned that after death the unfortunate
De Dominis was treated as a relapsed heretic, in which state,
notwithstanding his affected penitence, he was deemed to have
expired. His corpse was publicly burned to ashes, and his
works shared the same fate.”
* Ellies-Dupin, Hist, Eccles. du XVII. Siècle. D'Avrigny, Men. Chronolog.
tom. i. p. 250,
VOT). I. U
290 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
O H.A. PTER WII.
OF all the recommendations of the clergy at the States-General
of 1615, only two were carried into effect by the Crown. These
were the reinstatement of the Jesuits as public teachers, and the
restoration of the Church establishment in Béarn. By a royal
Ordonnance of February 15, 1618, the Jesuit fathers were
authorized to re-open their college at Paris (the Collège de
Clermont) for the delivery of lectures in the sciences and other
branches of knowledge; and the Parliament was forbidden to
entertain any appeal against this measure. The University
accordingly forbore to appeal; but nevertheless proceeded to
draw up a series of stringent regulations with a view to exclude
the Jesuits from degrees and other privileges of the corporation.
These provisions were summarily cancelled by an order of the
Council of State. ... • -
Father Cotton, who ever since the restoration of the Jesuits
had occupied the post of royal confessor, and had exercised a
weighty influence both political and ecclesiastical, was removed
from office in 1617, on the Occasion of the rupture between
Louis and the Queen Mother. His place was supplied by
another member of the Order, Father Arnoux, a man of at least
equal ability, but of a bigoted and violent temper, who, in con-
junction with the new favourite De Luynes, soon acquired a
paramount ascendency over the feeble mind of Louis. Urged
by their importunities, the king determined, in the summer of
1617, on taking immediate steps for the re-establishment of the
Catholic religion in the Principality of Béarn, and restoring to
the Church the property which had been confiscated for the
benefit of the Calvinists by Jeanne d'Albret some fifty years
before.” This point had been strenuously insisted on by the
clergy ever since the promulgation of the Edict of Nantes,
of which indeed it formed one of the principal stipulations.
* By an odict of October 31, 1571.
A.D. 1617. LOUIS AND THE STATES OF BāARN. 291
|Tenry IV. had made several attempts to satisfy them ; * but he
was embarrassed by habitual respect for the “fors,”f or consti-
tutional liberties, of his native country, by one of which it
was unlawful for the Sovereign to annul anything that had
once been enacted by the States of Béarn. Louis XIII. was
very differently situated from his father, and entertained no
such scruples. He was deeply attached to the Catholic faith;
and the daily representations made to him by those nearest his
person convinced him that it was his duty no longer to tolerate
the existing state of things in that part of his dominions. An
Order of Council, dated June 25, 1617, directed that the exercise
of the Catholic, Apostolic, and Roman religion should be resumed
and maintained throughout the province of Béarn, and that the
Catholic clergy should be put into possession of the tempo-
ralities; due provision being made at the same time for the
ejected Protestant ministers, by a grant from the revenues of
the Crown equal in amount to the emoluments which they
surrendered. This mandate was received by the Béarnois with
a general outburst of indignant opposition. The States assembled
hastily, and declared that their immemorial rights and privileges
had been violated. The Huguenots remonstrated at a great
meeting of their preachers and deputies at Orthez; the Conseil
souverain of Pau declined to register the edict; and such was
the agitation that prevailed, that rebellion and civil war once
more appeared imminent. De Luynes and the ultra-catholic
party in the Council urged Louis to proceed to extremities
against the exasperated Protestants; but the course of events
in other quarters determined him for the present to an opposite
policy. The movements of the Queen Mother Mary de Medici,
who had been exiled from court at the time of the assassination
of the Maréchal d'Ancre in 1617, were such as to create con-
siderable anxiety. The disaffected grandees—the Dukes of
Epernon, Guise, and Mayenne, the Maréchal de Bouillon, and
others—had flocked around her in her retirement at Blois, and
were intriguing with eager animosity against the government,
* By an edict of 1599 Henry esta- deem the ancient estates belonging to
blished in some measure a Catholic their sees. - -
organization in Béarn, appointing # The same word with the well-
bishops at Lescar and Oléron, with known “fueros” of the Pasque pro-
fixed salaries, and permission to re- Vinces of Spain, - :
U 2
202 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAIP. VII.
On the night of the 22nd of February, 1619, Mary contrived,
with the assistance of Epernon, to escape from the chateau of
Blois, and fled to Angoulême,” where, supported by the factious
nobles and their retainers, she occupied a formidable position.
In this posture of affairs the Court deemed it wiser to postpone
coercive measures against the Protestants of Béarn; the more
so, inasmuch as the Huguenot leaders forbore at this conjuncture
to embarrass the Government by openly taking part with the
malcontents of Angoulême. Accordingly they received per-
mission to hold a general assembly of their co-religionists at
Loudun, in September of this year, for the purpose of preparing
and presenting to the Crown a formal statement of their griev-
ances. This synod, however, proved even more excited and
turbulent than that at Orthez. It was demanded of the king,
as a preliminary article to the general cahier, that the edict of
restitution should be unconditionally withdrawn. So critical
was the state of parties, that the Government durst not return a
direct negative to this requisition; and, after much temporising
and hesitation, a sort of compromise was entered into with the
Protestant deputies at Loudun, through the intervention of the
Prince de Condé and the Duc de Lesdiguières. In the mean
time strenuous efforts were made to bring about a good under-
standing between Louis and his mother, and thus to frustrate
the cabals of her party. Cardinal de Bérulle, who among his
other talents was known to be a skilful diplomatist, was despatched
to Angoulême to ascertain the queen's dispositions, and pave the
way towards a reconciliation. Recourse was also had to the
Bishop of Luçon, who was recalled from his banishment at
Avignon and sent on the same errand to the temporary residence
of his royal mistress. With considerable difficulty the terms of
accommodation were at length agreed on. Mary recovered her
independence, and obtained for herself the government of Anjou,
together with lavish promises of honours and appointments for
her friends; after which an interview took place between the
king and his mother at Tours, and peace was apparently sealed.
* The Duke of Epernon was Go- lieu. Father Joseph was one of the
vernor of the province of Angoumois. chief agents in this negociation with
f Ai the suggestion of the Capuchin the queen. (Arch. Cur. de l’Hist, de
monk Joseph du Tremblay. This France, 2 Serie, tom. iv.)
service was never forgotten by Riche- -
wº. 1620. LOUIS XIII. IN BEARN. 293
But the bad faith of De Luynes, who neglected to fulfil several
of the most important stipulations of the treaty, soon produced
a fresh train of discontents; and a far more alarming confederacy
was organized, which the Government found itself compelled to
encounter by force. The hostilities were of brief duration, and
in August, 1620, the insurgents were reduced to submission.
The conditions granted to them were nearly identical with those
of the year preceding; but Richelieu succeeded in carrying
certain points of special advantage to himself, one of them being
a promise from the king to recommend him to the Pope for
promotion to the rank of Cardinal.
Matters being thus pacifically settled in the North, Louis
turned his attention to the subjugation of the refractory Béarnais.
He had now a powerful body of troops under arms; with these
he marched to Bordeaux, and for the last time summoned the
authorities at Pau to register the edict of “main-levée’’ in
favour of the Catholic clergy. They remained obstinate in
their refusal; whereupon the king, exclaiming, “Il faut aller a
eux!” took the road to Béarn at the head of his army. At
these tidings the terrified magistrates hastily registered the
edict; but it was now too late. Touis arrived next day within
sight of Pau. His attendants desired instructions as to the cere-
monial to be observed on his entrance; he replied that he would
proceed first of all to the church, if there were any in the place,
and if not, he would make his entry without any pomp or state
at all, since it would ill become him to receive the honours of
royalty in a spot where he had no means of offering his homage
to God, from whom he held his dominions.” On the 15th of
October, 1620, Louis traversed the streets of Pau and took up
his quarters at the ancient chateau, amid the sullen silence of
the inhabitants. On the 17th he repaired to Navarreins, the
strongest fortress in the province, where he superseded the Pro-
testant governor and replaced him by a Catholic; he also caused
mass to be celebrated in his presence, for the first time since
the Catholic ritual had been abolished half a century before.
Returning next day to Pau, Louis presided personally at the
execution of his edicts for the re-establishment of the Church
as it existed before the so-called Reformation. The churches
* }}ercure François, tom. vi. p. 350.
294 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
were restored to the Catholics; the bishops and abbots of Béarn
recovered their ancient privileges, their seats in the provincial
legislature, their lands and other endowments; the alienated
tithes were resumed by the parochial clergy. Finally, the
“pays souverain” of Béarn, together with its dependencies of
Basse Navarre, Andorre, and Donezan, were declared for ever
re-united and incorporated with the crown and royal “domaine”
of France. In consequence of this annexation, a new provincial
parliament was instituted at Pau, of which Pierre de Marca,
afterwards the eminent controversialist and Archbishop of
Toulouse, was appointed the first President. De Marca, though
at this time a young man of Only six-and-twenty, was already
thoroughly well versed in ecclesiastical law and Catholic an-
tiquity. He now eagerly engaged in conferences with the Pro-
testants of Béarn, and succeeded in effecting some remarkable
conversions to the Church. The exertions of Father Joseph
were rewarded by similar results. Father Cotton, too, was
encouraged by the late revolution of affairs to undertake a
journey to Pau, where he established a Jesuit college, and was
instrumental in many other measures tending to the strengthen-
ing and consolidation of Catholic interests.
The vigorous exhibition of despotic authority in the case
of Béarn threw the Protestants throughout the kingdom into
a state of extraordinary irritation. A general assembly was
convoked at La Rochelle, the capital of French Calvinism, in
December, 1620, contrary to the commands of the king, and
even to the advice of Duplessis-Mornay, and other chiefs of
the party. Inflammatory harangues were made, and violent
counsels prevailed. A memorial of grievances was adopted,
which the king refused to receive unless the synod were first
dissolved; the deputies, on their part, protested that they would
not separate until they had obtained satisfaction. Convinced,
by the concurrence of various causes, that another crisis was at
hand in their struggle with the Ancient Church, the Reformers
now made preparations for an armed insurrection. The assembly
of La Rochelle declared itself en permanence, and issued a mani-
festo by which the whole country was parcelled out into eight
circles or military governments. These were placed under the
command of the great Huguenot nobles—the dukes of Rohan,
Soubise, La Tremoille, and Chatillon, the Marquis de la Force,
A.D. 1621. INSURRECTION OF THE HUGUENOTS. 295
and the veteran Marshal Lesdiguières; the direction of the
whole being entrusted to the Duke of Bouillon. But this
organization was more formidable on paper than in reality;
much division of opinion existed among the nominal com-
manders as to the wisdom and policy of the hostile movement.
Bouillon declined the post of generalissimo, and remained
neutral in his fortress of Sédan. Ilesdiguières, who was already
more than half a Catholic, not only refused his services to the
Huguenots, but accepted a principal command in the royal
army. The Duke of La Tremoille, a relative of Bouillon,
followed the example of his uncle; — a course which was
expressly recommended to him, according to one account, by
Duplessis-Mornay himself.” In short, it is manifest that the
enterprise of the Protestants on this occasion was unwise, pre-
cipitate, and unjustifiable. Even admitting that they had good
ground for complaining of systematic infractions of the Edict of
Nantes, and other acts of oppression, their own interests would
have been far better served at this moment by patience and
moderation than by breaking out into open revolt. Stimulated
by the example of their brethren in Germany, who, under
the leadership of the Elector Palatine, were desperately
braving the whole strength of the Empire, the Huguenots
assumed an attitude which almost compelled Louis to proceed
to extremities against them as rebels and traitors. This was
playing the game of their enemies. The Jesuits, and other
Zealots who possessed the ear of Louis, easily persuaded him
that the time was come when he must vindicate his authority,
Once for all, against those who thus made religion a stalking-
horse for disloyalty and armed rebellion. In point of fact, both
the rising of the Huguenots, and the decisive measures of the
court for its suppression, resulted from the manoeuvres of that
great party which was labouring, at any cost, and often by
indefensible means, to restore the Supremacy of the Catholic
Church throughout Europe.
As I do not profess to write the history of the Calvinist
Separatists, nor to describe secular transactions except so far as
they directly bear upon the fortunes of the Church, the reader
Will not expect from me more than a very slight outline of the
* Le Vassor, Hist, de Louis XIII., Liv, xvii.
296 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
events of the two campaigns of Louis XIII. in the war of 1621
and 1622.
The king set out from Fontainebleau on the 29th of April,
1621, attended by the Duc de Luynes, who had just pre-
viously been advanced to the dignity of Constable of France.
His march towards the disturbed districts was preceded by a
proclamation, in which he assured the Huguenots that he was
fully resolved to observe all the edicts issued in their favour
both by his father and himself, and declared that, while
rebels with arms in their hands would henceforth be treated
as such, he took specially under his royal protection all of
the reformed persuasion who should remain faithful in their
allegiance to their sovereign. This was language well cal-
culated to increase the symptoms of disunion which had
already begun to manifest themselves among the ranks of the
insurgents.
The first Huguenot town of which Louis took possession was
Saumur, where Duplessis-Mornay, who had held the post of
governor for upwards of thirty years, was deprived of his com-
mand under a promise to restore it within three months, which
was never fulfilled. The Duke of Soubise retired before the
royal army, and the districts bordering on the Loire, together
with the whole of Poitou, Submitted without resistance. St.
Jean d’Angély was taken after a siege of three weeks, and
lenient terms were granted to the inhabitants; the fortifica-
tions, however, were dismantled, and the town forfeited its
municipal charter and other privileges. The towns of Guienne
were reduced with little difficulty, with the exception of Clérac
on the Lot, which was vigorously defended for twelve days.
Here Louis ordered the public execution of four Protestants,
one of them a minister, who had distinguished themselves by
fomenting the revolt. But, on proceeding to lay siege to
Montauban, the principal fortress of the Huguenots in the
south, the royal forces experienced a decided check. The place
was admirably defended by the Marquis de la Force and the
Duke of Rohan, and three months were consumed in ineffectual
efforts to subdue it." At length the ablest officers among the
* The noted Huguenot minister Chamier, the same who was employed in
drawing up the Edict of Nantes, contributed greatly to the successful resistance
A.D. 1621. DEFEAT OF LOUIS BEFORE MONTAUBAN. 297
royalists pronounced it hopeless to persist, and Louis was com-
pelled ignominiously to raise the siege. The Constable de
Luynes, to whose incompetence this misfortune was in great
measure attributed, shortly afterwards fell ill of a contagious
disorder prevalent in the camp, which carried him off in a few
days. The campaign now terminated, and the king returned to
Paris in January.
The repulse of the royal arms before Montauban had the
natural effect of encouraging the hopes and inflaming the fana-
tical ardour of the Huguenots. A general rising followed in
Languedoc, the Cevennes, and Provence, and was marked by
outrageous excesses on the part of the Sectaries against the
dominant religion. At Montpellier, the cathedral and every
other Catholic church in the city was pillaged and destroyed;
the clergy were driven away with violence and insult, and
the excellent bishop, Pierre Fenouillet, made his escape at the
imminent peril of his life. Similar acts of profanation were
perpetrated throughout the district; many of the most beautiful
specimens of the architectural taste of the middle ages perished
under the hands of these ruthless Reformers.
Early in the spring of 1622 the Rochellois fitted out a
considerable fleet of privateers, with which they blockaded
the western coast, and the embouchures of the Loire and the
Gironde, and committed great depredations on maritime com-
merce. The Duke of Soubise, at the same time, recommenced
warlike operations in Poitou, and overran the country up to the
gates of Nantes. On the 20th of March, 1622, the king once
more took the field, and marched against Soubise. He attacked
him at the Ile de Rié on the 15th of April, and inflicted on him
a total and decisive defeat, his loss amounting to upwards of
four thousand men. Flushed with victory, Louis now traversed
without resistance the whole of Poitou and Saintonge, and, on
entering Guienne, received the submission of two of the most
distinguished Huguenot generals—the Marquises of La Force
and Chatillon. They were not only pardoned unconditionally,
but were presented besides with the baton of marshal. Some
examples of severe reprisal were made, however, in the course
of Montauban. He was killed by a cannon-shot on the ramparts of the town
While in the act of encouraging the soldicrs.
298 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
of the royal progress; the little town of Négrepélisse in Quercy,
where a detachment of the king's troops had been put to the
sword during the winter, was sacked, and the entire population
was indiscriminately butchered.
It was during the summer of 1622 that the aged Marshal
Lesdiguières made his abjuration of Calvinism in the cathe-
dral of Grenoble, and was received into the Catholic Church by
the Archbishop of Embrun. Although the defection of such a
personage was, doubtless, a mortifying blow to the Protestants,
it can hardly have occasioned surprise. Throughout life Les-
diguières had been a lukewarm Huguenot; and it was well
known that of late years he had become entirely alienated from
the creed of the Reformers, and ready on the first favourable
opportunity to renounce it openly. It was a suspicious cir-
cumstance, no doubt, that the marshal, on the very day of his
recantation, received from the king the Constable's sword, which
had for years been the object of his ambition. This, not unna-
turally, exposed him to a storm of sarcastic reproaches from the
party which he abandoned; his appointment was, in their view,
the wages of apostasy—the thirty pieces of silver for which
Judas sold his Lord. It must, however, in justice be remem-
bered that Lesdiguières had made up his mind to the step
which he finally adopted for a considerable period before he
thus attained the highest dignity of his profession. It appears
that his first impressions in favour of Catholicism were due to
the powerful reasonings and exhortations of Father Cotton,
whose sermons he continued to attend at different intervals for
twenty years. He had also frequented the ministrations of
S. François de Sales, when on two successive occasions, in the
years 1617 and 1618, he preached during Lent at Grenoble;
and had repeatedly sought instruction from that great prelate
in private. The real reason why Lesdiguières neglected for
so many years to obey the dictates of his conscience was an
immoral connexion, which he lacked the firmness and courage
to break off. His mistress, Marie Vignon, became his wife after
the death of his first duchess; and the only obstacle to his
reconciliation with the Church being thus removed, he lost no
time in carrying out his long-formed purpose.
Unquestionably Lesdiguières was not superior to the common
Weaknesses of humanity, and ambition was one of his besetting
A.D. 1622. SUBMISSION OF THE HUGUENOTS. 299
infirmities; but it would be unfair to attribute his conversion
solely to motives of this Sordid kind. So far as can be ascer-
tained, his rejection of the doctrines of Luther and Calvin was
sincere; and he seems to have returned with implicit confidence
and satisfaction to the Church of his forefathers. Lesdiguières
died at the age of eighty-four, in September, 1626.
Towards the end of August the royal army commenced the
siege of Montpellier, which resisted for several weeks. But, mean-
while, negociations were proceeding between the Duke of Rohan
and the Constable Lesdiguières. Manifold difficulties presented
themselves, which were at length overcome, and on the 19th of
October it was announced that peace had been definitively con-
cluded. By the treaty of Montpellier a general amnesty was
granted, and the king again confirmed the Edict of Nantes in
its full extent; but, at the same time, the terms imposed upon
the Huguenots were sufficiently humiliating. Their cautionary
towns were forfeited, with the exception of La Rochelle and
Montauban ; Montpellier was to be dismantled, and its municipal
officers henceforth nominated by the Crown; all new fortifica-
tions raised by the Huguenots were to be demolished; and
though they were still permitted to retain their synods and “col-
loquies” for purely religious matters, they were interdicted
from holding meetings for political purposes without the king's
permission, under the penalties of high treason.
Thus this ill-advised movement enabled the Government to
attack with fatal effect the material guarantees which the
Calvinists had extorted by former Successes, and by means of
which they had rendered themselves so dangerous to the inde-
pendence of the State. After this, their extinction as a political
party was merely a question of time. A change of administra-
tion was at hand, which boded Ominously for their interests.
The anomaly of an imperium in imperio—a rival power estab-
lished side by side with the monarchical authority, and pos-
sessing its own instruments of independent action—was wholly
irreconcilable with the principles and genius of Richelieu.
That great statesman accordingly made it his primary object, on
succeeding to the helm of affairs, to put an end to the abnormal
position occupied by the Huguenots, and to reduce them to the
harmless level of a tolerated sect. It followed from this policy,
that the Gallican Church recovered its legitimate status as the
300 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. VII.
sole authorized teacher of the nation; though at the same time
Richelieu discouraged religious persecution, and respected, for
the most part, the individual rights of conscience.
An interval of more than two years elapsed after the death of
the Constable de Luynes before the accession of Richelieu to
supreme authority. His elevation to the Conclave took place
on the 5th of September, 1622; having been long delayed by
the jealousy of De Luynes, and by the personal antipathy with
which he was regarded by the king. At this moment the
persons who enjoyed the greatest influence at court were the
Comte de Schomberg, superintendent of finance, the Marquis de
Puisieux, Secretary of State, Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, and
Marshal Bassompierre. They were all men of inferior ability,
but they were closely united by one common object, namely,
that of excluding the new cardinal from any share in the adminis-
tration. Richelieu, although at this juncture he affected great
moderation, and even sought to excuse himself, on the score of
weak health, from engaging in any public employment,” was
well known to possess unbounded ambition, consummate talent,
and inflexible stedfastness of purpose. The ministers, conscious
of their own weakness, foresaw that if the doors of the council
chamber were once more opened to him, the cardinal would
eclipse all competitors, and monopolise the government. Never-
theless the force of circumstances, and the imperative require-
ments of the public interest, prevailed eventually against these
hostile intrigues. The incapacity of his present advisers
became manifest to Louis, who was by no means deficient in
intelligence, though too timid to rely on the resources of his
own mind in the great task of government. The Secretary
Puisieux was dismissed in January, 1624, and his disgrace was
shared by his father, the Chancellor de Sillery. Schomberg
had been previously deprived of office; and the chief authority
now passed into the hands of the Marquis de la Vieuville,
Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld continuing to act as the nominal
President of the Council. Vieuville found it necessary to
strengthen his position by obtaining the support of the Queen
Mother, who since her last reconciliation with Louis had again
become a person of considerable importance. Mary made it a
* F. Griffet, Hist, du Iſegme de Louis XIII, tom. i. p. 414.
A.D. 1624. RICHELTEU PRIME MINISTER. - 301
condition of her adhesion that her confidant Richelieu should
be introduced into the royal council. Vieuville assented, and
accordingly recommended the measure to the king. Louis,
who had accurately divined the Cardinal's character, resisted
for several weeks all solicitations in his favour. At length he
yielded, contrary to his private inclination, but in accordance,
we may well believe, with his sense both of duty and of interest
on public grounds. On the 26th of April, 1624, the Cardinal
took his seat for the second time as a member of the Council
of State; a place which he had the address to retain, without
any serious vicissitudes of fortune or diminution of influence,
throughout his life. He immediately resigned his bishopric of
Luçon, feeling that he could no longer fulfil the obligation of
residence; and his successor in the see was consecrated in June,
1624. From the first moment, the master spirit of the new
minister asserted its supremacy, and Louis ere long resigned
himself to his inevitable dominion. Richelieu inaugurated his
reign by claiming for himself, as a prince of the Church, the
right of precedence over all the great officers of the Crown, and
over all other members of the Council except the princes of the
blood royal. Vieuville, having served the Cardinal's purposes,
was driven from office on the first pretext, and was imprisoned
in the chateau of Amboise; and Richelieu at once succeeded to
the undisputed control of the vessel of the State.
It soon appeared that the Huguenots had gained no accession
of Wisdom by the failure of their recent insurrection. Several
of the provisions of the treaty of Montpellier had been evaded
by the Crown. Fort Louis, a royal garrison which menaced
La Rochelle, had not been demolished according to promise.
Obstacles had been thrown in the way of the meeting of the
reformed Synods and consistories; the civil privileges guaranteed
by the Edict of Nantes had been violated by the provincial
authorities; cases of gross partiality and injustice had occurred
in the administration of the law by the parliament. On these
grounds the sectaries hazarded another revolt in 1625, at a
Imoment when large bodies of the king's troops had been de-
spatched on foreign expeditions. The enterprise was conducted
by the two brothers Rohan and Soubise with their usual
gallantry, the former commanding by land, the latter by sea.
The details of the operations belong to the civil history of the
302 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
time. Soubise obtained some successes, but suffered a total
defeat off the Isle of Rhê, with the loss of almost his whole
fleet; after which the general assembly of the Protestants sent
deputies to treat with the Government for conditions of peace.
The king expressed himself willing to grant terms of recon-
ciliation to the Protestants of Languedoc, but was not disposed
to extend his clemency to those inveterate rebels the Rochellois.
The deputies represented that it was essential to include in
any pacific arrangement both La Rochelle and the Duke of
Soubise, whom they entitled “grand Admiral of the Protestant
churches.” This point was at length conceded through the
influence of Richelieu, who felt that, in order to carry out
successfully his schemes of foreign policy, it was absolutely
necessary to gain a respite from the treasonable agitation which
distracted France at home. He persuaded Louis, therefore, to
grant peace once more to his Protestant subjects without ex-
ception; and that upon more favourable terms than they had
any just reason to expect. They were left in possession of most
of their former privileges; and the king, though he declined to
dismantle Fort Louis, engaged that, so long as the citizens of
La Rochelle behaved peaceably and loyally, their commerce
should not be in any way obstructed by the royal garrison. A
special commissioner was to reside at La Rochelle during the
king's pleasure to superintend the execution of the articles of
the treaty. -
The motives of Richelieu in dealing thus leniently with the
heretics were misunderstood, or purposely misrepresented, by
zealous Catholics both at home and abroad. “My design,”
replied the Cardinal to the remonstrances of the Papal nuncio
Spada, “is to crush the Huguenots completely and for ever;
but before doing so, I shall be compelled to scandalise the
world once more.” Just now they are reviling me at Rome as
a heretic; the day will come when they will be more ready to
canonise me as a saint.” He had already astonished Europe by
siding with the Protestants of the Grisons against the House of
Austria, and even against the forces of the Pope himself; and
by Superficial or prejudiced observers the present pacification
with the Rochellois was viewed as a repetition of the same
* Le Vassor, Liv. xxii.
A.D. 1626. POLICY OF RICEIELIEU. 303
strange policy. When the treaty was signed, on the 5th of
February, 1626, Richelieu, accompanied by his colleague
Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, retired from the council chamber,
in order to avoid the appearance of participating in an act of
grace to heretics. But in spite of this precaution, the ultra-
Catholic bigots assailed the minister with every kind of libellous
vituperation; he was held up to ridicule as “the Cardinal of
La Rochelle,” “the patriarch of the Atheists,” “the Calvinist
Pontiff.” Two of the satires launched against his seemingly
anti-Catholic proceedings on this occasion were of so dangerous
a tendency, that the cardinal deemed it necessary to bring
them under the notice of the Assembly of the clergy then
in session at Paris. They were anonymous publications, of
which the first was entitled ‘Mysteria politica; the second,
‘Admonitio ad regem Christianissimum Ludovicum XIII.'
They were printed in Italy, and were attributed to the Jesuits
Eudaemon-Jean, Garasse, and Keller. “The King of France,”
the author asserted, “was inconsistent with himself; with one
hand he made war upon the heretics at home, while with
the other he supported them against the Catholics abroad.
He had succoured the States General of Holland; he was
helping to reinstate a heretic Elector lawfully deprived of his
dignity; he had leagued himself with the Protestants of the
Grisons against the Catholics of the Walteline.” The pamphle-
teers proceeded to discuss in detail various questions of a grossly
seditious character; for example, whether it was not the duty of
the States-General of France to point out to the king that his
alliances with heretics were unbecoming and criminal; whether
Louis had not by such conduct incurred the penalty of excom-
munication; whether his evil advisers are not equally liable
to ecclesiastical censure; whether the king Ought not to be
restrained by force from scandalising the Christian world by
making war upon Catholics; whether, under the present cir-
cumstances of the kingdom, it was not the duty of Frenchmen
to elect a prince capable of effectually defending the Catholic
religion, and if so, where such a prince was to be found. In
conclusion, the king was denounced as an enemy of the Church,
against whom the Pope ought forthwith to unsheath the sword
of St. Peter, and thus authorize other princes to declare war
against him in the common cause of Chrisſendom, “God had
304 THE GALLICAN CHURCH, CHAP. VII,
permitted his father Henry IV. to be assassinated, as a punish-
for having attempted to put two heretic princes into possession
of the duchies of Cleves and Juliers. The cause which the
House of Austria had espoused in this quarrel was none other
than the cause of God himself. To make war upon sovereigns
who were defending the Catholic religion was to act in open
opposition to the Divine will,—to “fight against God.” Every
page of the work abounded with virulent abuse of Richelieu, as
the firebrand of Europe, the projector of the “English mar-
riage,” and the author of the unnatural league between France
and anti-Catholic powers.
These extravagant productions were publicly burnt at Paris,
by order of the Lieutenant Civil, on the 30th of October, 1625;
and one of them, the “Admonitio,” was censured, without
difficulty, by the Sorbonne on the following 26th of November.
But in the ecclesiastical assembly matters took a different
turn. The Gallicans were, at this time, a powerful party,
anxious to stand well with the Court, and well disposed towards
the ministry of Richelieu. But the Ultramontane section was
not less numerously represented in the Synod; and a question
of this nature, involving as it did the crucial points at issue
between the two schools, was certain to provöke an animated
COntest. -
The Bishop of Chartres, Leonor d’Etampes, a man of high
reputation both for character and learning, and a personal
friend of Richelieu, was commissioned to draw up a report
upon the two libellous treatises. That prelate accordingly pre-
sented to the Assembly, on the 13th of December, an elaborate
“Declaration,” in which he enlarged on the presumption, inso-
lence, and wicked purposes of the anonymous pamphleteers;
asserted, in the loftiest language, the Divine authority of kings,
and the consequent necessity of unqualified passive obedience
on the part of subjects; defended the policy of the Government
both at home and abroad; and extolled, with warm admira-
tion, the genius and virtues of Richelieu.” This document was
approved, and ordered to be printed in French and Latin, and
the Synod immediately afterwards separated. But the Ultra-
montanes were by no means disposed to submit tamely to such
* Mercure François, tom. xi., 1068. Le Vassor, Liv. xxii,
A.D. 1626. INTRIGUES IN TEIE ASSEMBLY OF CLERGY. 305
a damaging censure of their favourite dogmas; and, with the
assistance of the Nuncio Spada, they set every available engine
in motion to procure the withdrawal or disavowal of the report.
In this they were so far successful that, at a private meeting
under the presidency of Cardinal de la Valette,” Archbishop
of Toulouse, a second report was adopted, condemning the libel
in general terms, but avoiding all mention of theological points
in dispute between the Gallicans and the Roman curia. The
Parliament of Paris, on the first information of this clerical
stratagem, interposed, forbidding the publication of any other
manifesto on the subject than that sanctioned by the Assembly
on the 13th of December. In the teeth of this injunction, the
dissentients, including two cardinals, eight archbishops, and
thirty-two bishops, with five deputies of the second Order,
assembled at the Abbey of St. Geneviève, and signed an
act repudiating the report of the Bishop of Chartres, on
the ground that the Assembly had never deliberated on its
contents. They also petitioned the king to annul the pro-
hibitory decree of the Parliament. The magistrates rejoined
by another arrêt, declaring the proceedings of the prelates
illegal, null, and void, forbidding future meetings of the clergy
for any similar purpose, and ordering the archbishops and bishops
to repair to their dioceses within fifteen days, under pain of
forfeiting their temporalities.
It must be confessed that the conduct of the French pre-
lates on this occasion was strangely undignified and inconsistent.
After solemnly expressing their assent, while constitutionally
assembled in Synod, to the declaration prepared by their brother
of Chartres, they are suddenly converted to an opposite view of
the case, revoke their own act, and put forth a different state-
ment, from which all mention of the grounds of the former
censure is carefully excluded. Even the Bishop of Chartres
himself came forward, and announced that he accepted the dis-
avowal of the original declaration of which he was the author,
* Louis de Nogaret de la Valette
was the third son of the Duke of Eper-
non, and was raised to the Roman Con-
clave by Paul W. in 1621. He became
one of the stanchest partisans of Riche-
lieu, and the minister, perceiving that
his talents lay in a very different line
WOI. I.
from that of the ecclesiastical pro-
fession, preferred him to various posts
of civil authority, and even employed
him in the command of armies, Car-
dinal de la Valette died at Rivoli in
Piedmont in 1639.
X.
306 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
on condition that the other prelates and deputies would sub-
scribe the three following propositions:—“That no cause what-
soever can justify subjects in revolting against their lawful
sovereign;” “That no one upon earth has power to dispense or
absolve them from their oath of allegiance;” and “That no power
exists which can deprive a monarch of his throne.” The Jesuit
D'Avrigny endeavours to dispose of the difficulty by alleging
that the sentence first published was unauthorized and surrep-
titious; that the Parliament, whose sentiments it expressed, im-
posed it upon the world as genuine; and that the second docu-
ment, disowning the former, was the only one that set forth authen-
tically the judgment of the French clergy upon the work before
them.” But this is altogether improbable. In the first place, the
report of the Bishop of Chartres was entered upon the official
register of the acts of the Assembly; and in the next, it is
scarcely credible that, in a case of such general notoriety, any
document professing to emanate from the assembled cardinals,
prelates, and clergy of the Church could have been put into
circulation in Paris, and received as such, unless it had been
issued with the Sanction of that body. The true solution is to
be found, in all probability, in the immense influence wielded by
the Jesuits, and in their ceaseless energy and marvellous dex-
terity in all cases where the interests of the Order were at stake.
Meanwhile two points of considerable importance are illus-
trated by this transaction. It appears, first, that a great
annount of arbitrary pressure was exercised at this period on
the ecclesiastical Synod, both by the executive Government
and by the Courts of Parliament. And again, it is plain that
a reaction had taken place among the clergy, with refer-
ence to the Ultramontane doctrines, since the meeting of the
States-General in 1614. During that interval of twelve
years the principles of Gallicanism had been steadily gaining
ground. Du Perron, the champion of the opposite system, had
been removed by death in 1618, and had left no one of equal
calibre to supply his place. De Bérulle, however able, zealous,
and influential in his own sphere, was not fitted by nature for
a party leader. Richelieu, who was now master of the situa-
tion, had just exhibited the spectacle of a cardinal actively
* D'Avrigny, Mémoires Chronolog., tom. i. p. 387.
A.D. 1626. THE PARLIAMENT AND THE CLERGY. 307
sympathising with heretics in declared antagonism to the Pope.
Under these circumstances, a decided impulse was given to the
development of that system of national Catholicism, as distin-
guished from Servile dependence on the Papacy, which afterwards
obtained so widely in France;—the system which culminated in
the memorable Declaration of the Gallican clergy of 1682.
The clergy protested vehemently against the decree of
the Parliament on the 3rd of March, by which they were
admonished to close their debates and retire from Paris. They
declared that the magistrates had no authority over the
Church lawfully represented in Synod; that it was both the
right and the duty of the prelates to meet in deliberation on
the affairs of religion as often as occasion might require;
that at present they were assembled for the purpose of ob-
faining, if possible, the suppression of the arrêts complained of,
and in order to dissuade the public from attaching any weight
to them, to the prejudice of their souls and of the respect due
to religion. This manifesto was ordered to be burnt by the
public executioner, and the Archbishop of Auch and the Bishop
of Angers were summoned to the bar of the Parliament to
answer for their conduct. It was now apprehended that a
serious collision would ensue between the civil and ecclesias-
tical authorities. Richelieu thought it time to interfere; and
on the 26th of March the king, by his advice, evoked the
whole affair to his own cognizance. The Parliament, notwith-
standing this, repeated their summons to the two prelates to
appear before the Court; upon which the bishops demanded
an audience of the king, in Order to remonstrate against this
abuse of power. This was granted, and the day for receiving
them was fixed; but before it arrived the magistrates signified
their submission to the Order of Council by which the cause
was evoked to the king's person. The conflict was thus cut
short, and no further proceedings were taken on either side.
Before the excitement caused by these incidents had sub-
sided, the Ultramontane faction came into still more serious
collision with the civil authorities in consequence of a Work
published at Rome by a Jesuit named Antonio Santarelli, en-
titled ‘De Haeresi, Schismate, Apostasiń, Sollicitatione in Sacra-
mento poenitentiae, et de potestate summi Pontificis in his
delictis puniendis.’ The book appeared under the sanction of
X 2
308 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
the Papal Government, and of Vitelleschi, General of the
Jesuits. A few copies.having been received by a bookseller in
Paris, it fell into the hands of certain fathers of the Order,
who, perceiving the dangerous nature of the author's views,
immediately notified their apprehensions to Father Cotton,
their provincial. Cotton hastened to secure the remaining
copies; but, before this could be done, one of them had been
inspected by a vigilant doctor of the Sorbonne, who made
copious extracts from the volume, and took care that they were
widely circulated. The authorities of the Parliament sounded
the alarm; a copy of Santarelli's treatise was procured from
Lyons, and, being submitted to the Syndic of the Sorbonne
and the Advocate-General Servin, proved to abound in matter
for serious animadversion.
Santarelli, as an exponent of Ultramontanism, seems to have
indulged in a more exaggerated tone than any of his predecessors.
According to him, the judgment of the Pope is identical with that
of God himself; as Vicar of Christ, he has authority to punish
temporal princes for grave dereliction of duty, even to the
extent, if he thinks fit, of depriving them of their dominions; he
is the sole depository of Supreme authority on earth ; monarchs
are his lieutenants, holding a delegated power, which for just
reason may at any time be revoked by him. No mediaeval
Hildebrand, Innocent, or Boniface, could have exalted the pre-
rogatives of the Holy See to a more monstrous pitch. The case
came on for hearing before the Parliament of Paris on the
13th of March, 1626. On this day Louis XIII. held a “bed of
justice ’’ for the registration of some edicts, and was present at
the scene which followed.
The Advocate-General, at the very moment when he rose to
address the Court for the prosecution, was seized with a fit of
apoplexy, and expired almost instantaneously. This tragical
event was not allowed to interrupt the proceedings. Servin
was replaced by Omer Talon, a man of equal ability, and of
more moderate temper, whose speech against the inculpated
Order created intense Sensation. Under the influence of these
feelings the Court adjudged Santarelli's book to be burned by
the hangman on the Place de Grève; after which they pro-
ceeded to deliberate whether further penal measures were not
required by the occasion ; and it was proposed to interdict the
A.D. 1626, THE PARLIAMENT AND THE JESUITS. 309
Jesuits from officiating in the pulpit and the confessional, to
close their Collège de Clermont, and even to expel them for
the Second time from France. None of these meditated penal-
ties, however, were inflicted. Whether the magistrates, when
their indignation had somewhat cooled, felt that a milder course
would meet the emergency; or whether the friends of the Order
at court found means to interest the king in their behalf; *
or again (which is most probable), whether the Cardinal-
minister himself intimated that, although resolved to main-
tain the Supremacy of the Crown, he could not sanction
persecution ; certain it is that the Jesuits were treated with
more clemency than might have been expected. The Parlia-
ment contented itself with ordering Father Cotton and his
colleagues to appear at the Palais de Justice for examination.
They accordingly repaired thither on the day named ; where
their bearing—modest and submissive, yet withal composed and
manly—seems to have conciliated the sympathy of the audi-
ence. They were severely interrogated by the first President
de Verdun, after which they were required to sign the four
following propositions:—1. “The king holds his crown and
kingdom only from God and his sword.” 2. “The Pope has no
authority, either coercive or directive, over temporal Sovereigns.”
3. “The king cannot in any case be excommunicated perso-
nally.” 4. “The Pope has no power to release subjects from
their oath of allegiance, nor to place the kingdom under an
interdict for any cause whatever.” Father Cotton, though at
this time he was afflicted with a mortal malady, had sufficient
self-command and tact to reply to this demand, that he and
his brethren would willingly sign the propositions, provided
the Sorbonne and the Assembly of the clergy then sitting would
subscribe them likewise; but that it was not their province to
dictate terms to their superiors. The response was embarrassing;
for it was notorious that divisions existed both in the Sorbonne
and among the clergy with respect to the doctrines which these
articles involved. After some consultation, the Court was on
the point of ordering the two leading Jesuits to be arrested,
when the first President adjourned the decision to the following
* Mathieu de Molé, at that time | Fronde, is known to have interceded
Procureur-Général, afterwards the cele- with Louis to stop the proceedings of
brated premier President during the the Parliament, but without success,
310 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
Monday; and the party made such good use of the breathing-
time thus granted them, that Richelieu at last promised that
proceedings against them should be dropped, if they would
sign a written agreement to adhere to the censure which
the Sorbonne and the clergy might pass upon the Work of
Santarelli, and to support, with regard to its subject matter,
the sentiments professed by the Church of France, the
Faculty of Theology at Paris, and the Universities of the king-
dom. To this the Jesuits assented without difficulty; having done
the same thing, as the reader may remember, on a former
occasion.” With the aid of certain casuistical refinements,
they could always elude the obligation of any undertaking
which it might prove inconvenient or disagreeable to fulfil.
Father Cotton breathed his last on the day after this pacific
compromise had been arranged between the French Govern-
ment and the representatives of his Order. Although his
health had been for some time failing, there is no doubt that
his end was hastened by the anxiety he had undergone during
the progress of this harassing affair. By way of some repara-
tion, and in testimony of respect for his memory, the Arch-
bishop of Paris officiated at the funeral, and pronounced the
absolution; and Richelieu himself afterwards visited his tomb,
where he remained for some time absorbed in prayer.
When the censure of Santarelli came under the consideration
of the Theological Faculty, the doctors found it exceedingly diffi-
cult to arrive at a decision. The question was long and vehe-
mently debated by the antagonist parties—the “Duvallistes,”
as they were now designated, from their leader André Duval,
and the “Richeristes,” so called from their sympathy with the
deposed Syndic Edmond Richer. There seems to have been a
general feeling that censure in Some shape was required; but
it was impossible to agree upon the terms. A decree was at
length passed condemning the doctrine of Santarelli as “novel,
false, erroneous, and contrary to the Word of God; as exposing
the dignity of the Sovereign Pontiff to public odium, derogating
from the authority of kings, subversive of public peace, and
tending to encourage faction, rebellion, sedition, and murderous
attempts upon the life of princes.” The minority, however,
* See supra, Chapter VI. # March 19, 1626.
A.D. 1627. CENSURE OF SANTARELLI. 31||
headed by Duval, refused to accept this decision, and strained
every nerve to obtain some modification or retrenchment of the
terms employed. The question was agitated at many succes-
sive meetings with extreme irritation on both sides. The patience
of Richelieu was at length exhausted, and he interposed in his
usual high-handed style. On the 13th of February, 1627, a
royal ordinance forbad the Faculty to take any further pro-
ceedings with regard to Santarelli's book, or to publish any
report of their deliberations on the subject without the king's
permission. The Parliament, in defiance of this command,
insisted that the sentence passed by the Sorbonne should be
communicated for registration in their archives, and took other
steps for prolonging the contest. The consequence was a
peremptory order of Council, enjoining the magistrates to
interfere no further in an affair which was beyond their cog-
nizance. The king added that, in order to satisfy all parties,
he had resolved to appoint a commission of Cardinals and pre-
lates, to settle the definite terms in which the censure of the
“ detestable and pernicious doctrine” broached by Santarelli
should be expressed. This promise, it need scarcely be said,
his Majesty had no intention to fulfil. The commission was
never issued; but the expedient served its purpose, in termi-
nating, for the time being, a tedious and exasperating contro-
versy, with the further advantage of leaving neither one side nor
the other in a position to claim the victory.”
The insurrection of the Huguenots in 1627–8 gave Richelieu
a fair opportunity of finally uprooting their political power,
and destroying the dangerous anomaly which the age of the
Reformation had established in the bosom of the State. Unfor-
tunately for French Protestantism, it had become identified
in public opinion with disloyalty and rebellion. It cannot be
denied that Calvinism has a certain native antipathy to royalty,
and an equally strong affinity to democracy; and this connexion
had been exemplified in France with such disastrous results, that
the cause of the Reformers no longer commanded any amount
of national sympathy. It was essential to Richelieu to re-
establish tranquillity within the kingdom, in order to have his
* Memoires de Richelieu, Liv. xvii. Le Vassor, Liv. xxii. D'Avrigny,
Memoires Chronolog., tom. i. p. 390, et seqq. Cretineau-Joly, Histoire de la
Comp, de Jésus, tom, iii.
312 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
hands free for prosecuting his schemes of external aggrandise-
ment. The national mind, disgusted with interminable “Wars
of Religion,” and re-acting strongly towards Catholicism, con-
curred with the minister to a considerable extent; so that
although there were those, even among Catholics, who dis-
approved his policy, he was willingly and warmly supported
when, in August, 1627, he undertook the siege of the Huguenot
metropolis La Rochelle. -
It was one of those enterprises which form a turning-point
in the history of nations. “Many a time,” says Richelieu
himself, in one of his theological works,” “many a time, while
I was residing quietly as bishop in the neighbouring town of
Luçon, did I meditate on the possibility of recovering La
Rochelle to the obedience of the king, and on the means to be
employed for the purpose. The idea passed through my mind
in those days like a dream or shadowy imagination. But God
having ordained that what I then regarded as a chimera should
be taken in hand as a serious reality, I employed myself during
the siege in gaining converts from heresy by force of reason
and argument,” while the king was transforming rebels into
loyal subjects by the valour of his arms.” It is true that the
Cardinal, as became his character, took measures for giving to
the siege of La Rochelle the aspect of an ecclesiastical, as well
as a military, undertaking. He filled the royal camp with a well-
disciplined array of priests, monks, and missionary preachers;
and among those who distinguished themselves by their energy
and success in the campaign, we find the names of the Bishop
of Maillezais (Henri de Sourdis, afterwards Archbishop of Bor-
deaux), the Bishop of Mende, the Bishop of Nismes, the Abbé
de Marsillac, and the redoubtable Capuchin Father Joseph.
Richelieu himself held frequent conferences with the Duc de la
Tremoille, and had the Satisfaction of witnessing the return of
that nobleman to the Catholic Church. His son Louis Maurice
de la Tremoille, Comte de Laval, was converted Soon afterwards;
he not only abjured Protestantism, but entered into holy orders,
took the monastic vows in the Abbey of Charroux, and passed
the rest of his life in the practice of austere piety. Nevertheless
t See Richclieu’s “Méthode la plus facile pour convertir ceux qui se sont
separés de l'Eglise.’
A.D. 1627–8. SIEGE OF LA ROCHELLE. 313
the Cardinal by no means confined himself on this great occa-
sion to the peaceful duties which best accorded with his profes-
sion. He presided every day at the council of war; and in his
position of Lieutenant-General of Aunis, Poitou, and Sain-
tonge, he even discharged the functions of Commander-in-Chief
in the absence of the king. The Rochellois, after resisting
obstinately for fourteen months, were at length compelled to
capitulate on the 28th of October, 1628; when the king granted
them an amnesty for past offences, the enjoyment of their pro-
perty, and the free exercise of their religion in a specified part
of the city. On the 1st of November Louis made his trium-
phant entry into La Rochelle, and Mass was celebrated by
Richelieu and the Archbishop of Bordeaux at the Church of
Ste. Marguerite, which had previously undergone the ceremony
of “reconciliation.” It was announced by proclamation that
this church would shortly be converted into a cathedral; the
nearest episcopal See, that of Maillezais, being transferred to
La Rochelle under the sanction of the Pope. This was effected
by a bull of Innocent X., dated May 4, 1648. All the churches
of the “Pays d'Aunis,” with the ecclesiastical property attached
to them, were ordered to be restored to the Catholic clergy.
The city forfeited its municipal charter and privileges; and it
was provided that no stranger or foreigner, no one professing
the “pretended Reformed religion,” or any other religion than
the Catholic, should hereafter be permitted to settle there as
a domiciled inhabitant. Finally, the Rochellois were to erect a
cross in the principal Square, with an inscription recording the
reduction of the city; and every year, on the 1st of November,
a solemn general procession was to be made in thanksgiving for
this signal mercy.”
In the course of the following year, after the submission of
the Duke of Rohan, who had prolonged hostilities in Languedoc,
a definitive pacification was concluded with the Huguenots by
the “Edict of grace,” which was promulgated at Nismes in
July, 1629. This act deprived the party of its last vestige of
independence. The fortifications of all their cautionary towns,
which for so long a course of years had formed their rallying
* Memoires de Richelieu, Liv. xviii., xix, Journal de Bassompierre, tom, iv.
Le VaSSOr, H. de Louis XIII., Liv. XXV, -
314 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
points and means of self-defence, were to be forthwith destroyed,
and hostages were to remain in the king's hands until this
should be accomplished. In other respects the conditions of the
edict wore an air of moderation and clemency. The Catholic
religion was to be everywhere restored, and recognized as that
of the State; and the Huguenots were to make restitution of
all ecclesiastical property which they had appropriated during
the wars; but, on the other hand, the unmolested exercise of
their religion was guaranteed to them, they were amnestied for
the past, and they preserved all property lawfully belonging to
them.* The Cardinal, on proceeding to Toulouse, met with an
enthusiastic reception from the population of that town, and
was complimented in flattering terms, not only by the magis-
trates, but even by the Huguenot ministers. He replied to a
deputation from the latter body, that his station precluded him
from receiving them as representatives of a Church, but that he
should always be happy to welcome them as men of Science and
letters; that he would endeavour to prove on all occasions that
the difference of religion should not prevent his rendering them
every service in his power; that he wished to make no dis-
tinction among the king's subjects except on the ground of
loyalty, which he hoped would henceforth be equally manifested
in both communions; it being the king's desire to place all
classes of his people on an equal footing of confidence and
favour.f - -
Although the success of this last and decisive campaign
against the heretics must doubtless be ascribed in the main to
the skill and energy of Richelieu, there is reason to believe
that, both as to the Original design and its execution, he owed
much to a brother churchman of a very different spirit, namely,
Cardinal de Bérulle. De Bérulle had entertained for years the
strongest conviction of the necessity of annihilating the power of
the Calvinists, which he regarded as the essential cause of the evils
which for sixty-four years past had afflicted France. It was his in-
fluence in the Council of State that finally determined the king
to besiege La Rochelle; contrary, in the first instance, to the
advice of Richelieu, who was apprehensive of a failure, and
* Le Vassor, Liv. xxvi. 4
f Aubéry, Vie du Card, de Richelieu, Liv. iii, chap. 11.
A.D. 1629. DE BáRULLE AND RICHELIEU. 315
also hesitated to commit himself to measures which might em-
broil France with the Protestant powers of Europe.* Such
considerations had no weight with the enthusiastic De Bérulle,
who believed on this occasion, as indeed he did on most others,
that he was acting under a special inspiration from above.
In the midst of no common difficulties and discouragements,
he maintained a confident anticipation of success in the end,
and exhorted all around him to await patiently and stedfastly
God's appointed time. Richelieu could not refrain from occa-
sionally asking his simple-hearted colleague, with half-con-
temptuous irony, to let him know the precise moment when
La Rochelle would make its submission to his Majesty's arms.
De Bérulle replied, with the utmost seriousness, “I have no
positive intelligence on this head, but I have my own senti-
ments; and since you require it, I am bound to impart them
to you. I regard La Rochelle as already secured to the king;
and I trust that the event is not far distant. I do not expect
it from the dyke which has been thrown across the harbour,
nor from the blockade by land; but from some sudden and
unforeseen operation. Yet in matters of this kind one ought
to be extremely reserved both in judging and speaking, and to
bear in mind that saying of Our Lord to his Apostles, ‘It is
not for you to know the times or the seasons, which the Father
hath put in His own power.’ These words teach us to fall back
into our own nothingness; but they do not oblige us to desist
from prayer. Itherefore beseech God importunately to shorten
the days. It is for the sake of our country that I offer up these
prayers to heaven; and I entreat your Eminence not to thwart
them.”f De Bérulle, when these anxious petitions had at length
been granted, failed not to pay his vows of thanksgiving in the
church of St. Marguerite at La Rochelle; and caused a painting
by the celebrated Le Sueur, representing the Nativity, to be
placed over the high altar, the spot where he had been visited
with that mysterious foreshadowing which the late events had
SO completely verified.
De Bérulle lived to witness the final pacification with the
Huguenots, but was almost immediately afterwards removed
* Tabaraud, Hist, de Bérulle, Liv. v. chap. 4.
T. f MS. letter of Card, de Bérulle, Dec. 11, 1627, quoted by Tabaraud, Liv. v.,
chap. 4.
316 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VII.
from his career of earthly labour. He expired suddenly at the
Oratorian College in the Rue St. Honoré at Paris, on the 2nd
of October, 1629. The incurable jealousy of Richelieu’s nature
had latterly made De Bérulle odious to him ; and a suspicion
arose that his death was attributable, in some shape or degree,
to the minister's agency. Insinuations of this kind were cha-
racteristic of the age, and unfortunately were often substantiated
by facts; but in this instance there is no tittle of evidence to
clothe the fiction with any semblance of reality.
A.D. 1600. VINCENT DE PAUL. 317
CHAPTE R W III.
FROM this summary of the external policy of the Church
of France during the earlier years of Richelieu’s ministry, I
return to the details of its interior history. The reader's atten-
tion must be claimed, in the first place, for some new religious
institutions belonging to this period, which have not been hitherto
noticed. - -
No name more worthy of pre-eminent honour and veneration
is to be found in the records of the 17th century than that
of VINCENT DE PAUL. This celebrated man was not, like
Erançois de Sales, the Scion of a noble house, but sprang from
the ranks of the people. His parents were peasants of the
village of Pouy, near Dax,” in the Landes of Gascony. Here
Vincent was born on the 24th of April, 1576. The religious
disposition and love of learning which the boy manifested at
a very early age determined his father to devote him to the
clerical profession; and after receiving the rudiments of educa-
tion at Dax, he was sent to study at Toulouse. Here he was
admitted to the priesthood in September, 1600. A singular
misfortune which befel him not long afterwards seems to have
had the effect of shaping the prevailing character of his subse-
quent ministry. In the course of a coasting voyage from Mar-
seilles to Narbonne, in 1605, the vessel in which he sailed was
captured by pirates from Barbary. Vincent was loaded with
chains, and sold into slavery at Tunis. In this desolate con-
dition he remained for more than two years, enduring many
hardships and much cruel treatment; but learning at the same
time inestimable lessons of personal sympathy with human
Suffering and sorrow; displaying a wonderful example of
humility, fortitude, and resignation to the Divine will; and
effecting in the end the conversion of his master, a hardened
* Or D'Acqs, as it was anciently written, The town, like others in France,
was named by the Romans from the hot springs (de aquis) with which the spot
abounds,
318 - TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VIII.
renegade from Christianity. In company with this man, who thus
became the firstfruits of his missionary zeal, Vincent made his
escape from Tunis, and returned to Europe; and after spending
some time at Rome, he arrived at Paris in 1609. He was
charged with an important confidential mission from Pope
Paul W. to Henry IV. He was now gradually brought into
contact with most of those distinguished and devoted persons
who were labouring in various departments for the reorgani-
zation of the Church in France. With De Bérulle, who at
that time was laying the foundations of the Oratory, he con-
tracted a close friendship, and resided under his roof for two
years, not precisely as a member of the new congregation,
but for the sake of retirement and study under the direction
of the Superior. After discharging for some time the duties
of parish priest in the suburban village of Clichy, Vincent
de Paul was recommended by de Bérulle to the count and
countess de Joigny for the responsible post of preceptor to
their sons. This nobleman, Philippe Emanuel de Gondi, was
the head of a branch of that ancient family, and held the
office of Général des Galéres de France. His wife, a daughter
of the Comte de la Rochepot, was one of the most accom-
plished, intellectual, and religious women of the time. They
had three sons, of whom the eldest became Duc de Retz,
and general of the Galleys on the resignation of his father ;
the second died in early boyhood; the third was Jean François
Paul, the demagogue of the Fronde, coadjutor to his uncle the
Archbishop of Paris, and at length his successor in that see.
Vincent accepted the appointment, and his admirable conduct
in this new sphere of duty SOOn Won for him the warm esteem
not only of the Count and Countess and their family, but of all
with whom he had intercourse. While thus employed at the
Count's chateau of Folleville, he was one day requested to
attend the death-bed of a peasant in the neighbouring village of
Gannes, who had expressed an earnest wish to see him. So
skilfully did Vincent deal with the burdened conscience of this
dying sinner, that he was induced to make a general confession
of the errors of his past life, including certain secret griefs
which he had never hitherto had the courage to reveal. This
afforded him inexpressible relief, and he expired in peace and
hope. The occurrence sunk deeply into the mind of Madame
A.D. 1617. VINCENT DE PAUL. 319.
de Gondi, and at her suggestion Vincent de Paul delivered a
discourse in the church of Folleville, in January, 1617, exhorting
the villagers to avail themselves of the same method of cleansing
thèir consciences and making their peace with God. The result
was marvellous. The preacher “bowed the hearts” of the con-
gregation “as the heart of one man”; they were drawn by a
simultaneous and irresistible attraction to the tribunal of
penance; and so great was the throng of applicants, that Vin-
cent and another priest who assisted him found themselves
unequal to the task of hearing their confessions, and were com-
pelled to send for aid to the Jesuit college at Amiens. Such
was the first of those parochial “missions” for which Vincent
de Paul became so famous. But his lowly spirit shrunk from
the éclat which followed, as from a dangerous snare; he felt it
necessary to relinquish his office in the household of the Comte
de Joigny, and retired to an obscure town in the district of
Bresse, where he devoted himself to the humblest duties of the
pastoral care among a rude, ignorant, and vicious population.
Even here his reputation had preceded him, and ere long he
found himself the leader of a religious movement in the
neighbourhood, which was destined to bear Solid and permanent
fruit. It was at Chatillon en Bresse that Vincent founded an
association to which he gave the name of “confrèrie de la
charité,”—the first type of a multitude of similar institutions
which at no distant date were to overspread France. Its
members were females, whose duty was to minister, according
to a fixed rule, to the necessities, temporal and spiritual, of the
sick poor, under the direction of the parochial clergy. They
were called Originally “Servantes des pauvres,” a title after-
wards exchanged for that of “Soeurs de la charité.” These
sisterhoods were soon appreciated, and multiplied rapidly. In
the course of a very few years Vincent established them in
upwards of thirty country parishes; and with the co-operation
of a benevolent widow lady, Louise Legras, they were intro-
duced into the metropolis in 1629.
Overcome by the urgent solicitations of the Count and
Countess de Joigny, Vincent de Paul took up his abode in their
family a second time in December, 1617; but his tutorial
duties were now scarcely more than nominal, and he was
enabled to dedicate himself almost entirely to that which he
320 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. WIII.
regarded as his special vocation, missionary work among the
people of neglected rural districts. With the assistance of
other priests of congenial spirit, he visited various parts of the
dioceses of Paris, Beauvais, Soissons, and Sens, where the house
of Gondi possessed estates. As the sphere of these operations
widened, Vincent and his friends formed a plan for perpetuating
them, by founding a distinct institution for the purpose; and
the project was realized in 1625 by the munificence of the
Countess de Joigny, who by a legal deed of assignment gave
the sum of 46,000 livres for the support of a community of
missionary clergy, of which Vincent was named the first Superior.”
The new foundation received the sanction of the Archbishop of
Paris, a brother of the Count de Joigny, on the 24th of April,
1626; and the ancient Collège des Bons Enfants was made over
to Vincent as a residence for himself and his associates. Letters
patent were obtained from the Crown, and Pope Urban VIII.,
by a bull dated January 12, 1632, erected the society into
a congregation by the name of the “Congregation of Priests
of the Mission.” The charter of foundation, which breathes
throughout the characteristic humility of its author, provides that
the ecclesiastics thus incorporated shall renounce all thought of
dignified preferment and fixed benefices, and shall devote them-
selves exclusively to the work of evangelizing country towns and
villages,—preaching, catechising, hearing confessions, and minis-
tering to the spiritual needs of the inhabitants, without recom-
pense of any kind whatsoever. They were to pay special
attention to prisoners under sentence of travaux forcés; and
they bound themselves not to exercise their functions in towns
where there existed a metropolitan or diocesan See, or a “presi-
dial” court of justice. - -
Vincent de Paul had only one companion, Antoine Portail,
when he established himself at the Collège des Bons Enfants.
Six other priests joined him in the following year. Looking
back, at the distance of twenty years, on these modest com-
mencements of his work, he says, “We went forth in all honesty
and simplicity, commissioned by our superiors the bishops, to
* The countess did not live to wit- one. After her death her husband
ness the results of this act of large- entered into holy orders, and joined
hearted beneficence. She died on the the congregation of the Oratory,
23rd of June, 1625, at the age of forty-
A.D. 1632. VINCENT DE PAUL. 321
preach the Gospel to the poor, even as our blessed Lord had
done; this is what we did, and God, on His part, did what He
had foreordained from all eternity. To some extent. He blessed
our labours; and perceiving this, other good priests entered our
Society, not all at once, but at many different periods. O
Saviour ! who could have imagined that the work would ever
reach the state in which we behold it now 2 If any one had
told me this when we began, I should have thought he was
mocking me; nevertheless that was the commencement from
which it has pleased God to raise up our great community.
Well! can that be properly called human which no human
being could ever have conceived 2 Certainly neither I nor my
poor friend Portail ever dreamed of it. Very far indeed were
we from cherishing any such idea.” "
The “priests of the Mission" had not long plied their calling
in the outlying townships and remote hamlets of provincial
France, before they discovered that the pastors stood in scarcely
less urgent need of reformation than the flock; and that if the
people were sunk in ignorance and vice, the main cause lay
in the negligence, incapacity, and unedifying example of the
clergy. I have already spoken of the general relaxation of
discipline which followed the civil and religious distractions
of the preceding century; and of the state of degeneracy with
regard to learning, zeal, and morals into which the parochial
priesthood had consequently fallen. All the leading churchmen
of the day were anxiously employed in devising remedies for
this most serious evil. The Jesuit colleges were beginning to
supply candidates who had undergone a regular course of train-
ing for the ministry with considerable care and success; the
Oratory, under the direction of De Bérulle, had taken root at
Paris, and was gradually extending itself into the provinces by
means of affiliated branches; some two or three diocesan Semi-
naries had been opened, and the bishops seemed disposed to
favour similar institutions. But the agencies hitherto attempted
were manifestly insufficient to meet the case. Vincent de Paul
suggested the experiment of retreats, as methods of preparatory
discipline for those about to undertake the pastoral office. He
submitted his plan first to the Bishop of Beauvais, Augustin
* Abelly, Vie de M. Vincent, Liv. i. chap. 47.
WOI. I.
Y
*
322 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. VIII.
Potier de Gesvres, an enlightened and conscientious prelate,
who gave it his cordial approval; and it was announced that
none would be ordained in the diocese of Beauvais without first
passing through the course of exercises proposed by the Superior
of the congregation of the Mission, under his personal direction.
The bishop received the candidates in his palace, and here, in
the Lent of 1628, Vincent de Paul, with the assistance of two
priests of his Society, conducted the Retreat, which produced the
happiest fruits. The scheme, with the encouraging result of its
first trial, was next laid before the Archbishop of Paris, who on
many occasions had testified his high esteem of the character
and labours of Vincent de Paul; and the retreats for ten days
previous to the general ordinations were adopted in the metro-
politan diocese by a mandement of February, 1631. The first
was held in the Lent of that year at the Collège des Bons
Enfans, where Vincent de Paul was then residing. At each
subsequent ordination * from seventy to ninety candidates were
received in the same institution; and here the priests of the
Mission provided them with board and lodging, and all other
reasonable comforts, without requiring any payment in return ;
this being laid down as an essential feature of the system.
The daily work was divided into two portions; in the morning
the instructions turned upon points of moral theology, and
the practical functions of the Sacerdotal office; upon laws di-
vine and human; the Decalogue, the Creed, the Sacraments
in general, the nature, varieties, and effects of sin, the duties
of the priest in the confessional, the Eucharist as a sacra-
ment and a sacrifice, and the various details of the ritual
system of the Church. The evening was spent in consider-
ing the virtues, qualities, and graces peculiarly necessary to
the ministers of Christ, and the means of cultivating them;
special stress being laid upon vocation, upon the priestly
life, upon the habit of mental prayer, and upon the dis-
tinctive character of each order of the ministry. After the
lecture, the candidates were assembled in groups of ten or
twelve, as nearly as might be of equal capacity and attainment,
each under the guidance of a priest of the Mission, for the pur-
pose of conferring together familiarly upon the topics which had
* At this time it was usual to hold sia. Ordinations in the course of the year.
A.D. 1632. RETREATS CONDUCTED BY WINCENT DE PAUL. 323
been brought before them, and thus storing up in the memory
materials for future improvement. Every effort was made by
Vincent de Paul and his colleagues, in the general arrange-
ments of the establishment, to render the sojourn of the candi-
dates among them not only edifying in the highest sense, but
also socially agreeable. They were treated not as strangers,
but as friends, on a footing of cordial sympathy and brotherly
affection. Their wants and wishes were assiduously studied;
the members of the Congregation, with their staff of lay as-
sistants, devoted their whole time and thoughts to the comfort of
their guests. That under such circumstances the scheme was
eminently successful, and assumed proportions of extraordinary
magnitude, cannot excite surprise. From every diocese into
which priests had gone forth with the recommendation of having
been trained at the Collège des Bons Enfans, encouraging testi-
mony was received to the signal benefits conferred by this
means upon the Church. The Bishops of Poitiers, Angoulême,
Noyon, Chartres, Saintes, and others, wrote to congratulate
Vincent de Paul upon the zeal and ability of the labourers
whom he had formed for the Lord's vineyard, and to assure him
of the high estimation which they had won from the faithful of
all classes. Applications poured in from all parts of France
for a larger supply of well-qualified pastors; demands with
which the Congregation of the Mission found itself quite unable
to comply while restricted within the narrow bounds of its
Original home. Most opportunely the way was opened, in 1632,
for their removal to a much more spacious abode, namely the
Priory of St. Lazare in the Faubourg St. Denis, which was in
ancient times a hospital for lepers, but had passed into the pos-
session of the Canons Regular of St. Victor. The prior of this
community, Adrian Lebon, offered to cede the whole establish-
ment and its dependencies, upon very favourable conditions, to
Vincent and his priests. They accordingly took possession of
it in January, 1632, the Archbishop of Paris presiding at their
installation; and it was from this new acquisition that the
members of the Congregation derived the appellation by
which they were afterwards most commonly known, that of
Lazarists.
Vincent no sooner found himself amply provided with space
and other material appliances, than he expanded his field of
Y 2
324 - THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VIII.
action to a degree which he had never before contemplated.
One of his first steps after establishing himself at St. Lazare was
to set on foot a series of “Conferences;” meetings at which the
clergy of Paris and other dioceses might consult together on the
difficulties of their ministry, and impart the advantage of mutual
experience. This, it need hardly be remarked, was a project
which required peculiar delicacy of handling, both with regard
to organization and execution. But the character of Vincent de
Paul, combining the deepest humility and the tenderest charity
with that lofty gift of wisdom which, more surely than any
merely intellectual endowment, sways and subdues minds of a
lower order, was precisely adapted to such an undertaking; and
the results of the attempt were in the highest degree satisfactory.
The first Conference was held at St. Lazare on the 16th July,
1633; and for many years they were regularly continued on the
Tuesday in each week, becoming celebrated far and wide as
the “Tuesday Conferences of St. Lazare.” A code of rules was
drawn up for the association by Vincent de Paul, of which the
following were the principal features. That the main object
proposed by the members was to honour the incarnate life of the
Son of God, His everlasting priesthood, His holy family, and His
love towards the poor; to this end they were to study to con-
form their whole life to His, to labour for the glory of God in all
the details of the ecclesiastical career, and especially by diligent
ministrations among the poor. The design of the Conferences
being to support and build up in practical godliness those who
should frequent them, their ordinary subject-matter should
be the virtues, functions, and occupations specially appro-
priate to men dedicated to the service of the Altar. That
the members sought by means of this Association to become
more closely knit together in Jesus Christ; and with a view to
promote this sacred union, they were to be assiduous in visiting
and consoling one another, especially in times of sickness and
affliction; that these offices of sympathy were to be continued
not only during life, but, so far as possible, after death; that the
members were to assist at the funeral obsequies of their departed
brethren ; they were to say three masses for them, or to com-
municate for their intention. Systematic directions were also
given for the employment of each portion of the day. The priests
were to rise at a prescribed hour; to devote at least half an hour
A.D. 1633. “TUESDAY CONFERENCES ’’ OF ST. LAZARE. 325
to mental prayer; to say Mass, and afterwards to read on their
knees a chapter of the New Testament; to engage in certain
spiritual exercises before each meal; to spend a definite time
in external works of charity; and to conclude the day with a
general examination of conscience.
The biographer of Vincent de Paul” enlarges on the incom-
parable unction, the noble simplicity, the surprising power of
Scriptural illustration, the touching pathos, the almost super-
human eloquence, displayed by this eminent servant of God at
his Conferences. Nor does his picture appear to be at all over-
coloured. It is borne out by the concurrent evidence of numbers
of ecclesiastics who were present at these exercises; and the
general influence for good accruing from them to the Church is
the common theme of the historians of the time.
Bossuet attended a retreat at St. Lazare in the Lent of 1652,
previously to his ordination; and of the profound impressions
he received on this occasion he has left a remarkable account
in a letter to Pope Clement XI., dated August 2, 1702. Some
extracts from it will be interesting to the reader. “Ille nos ad
Sacerdotium promovendos Suá suorumque operá juvit. Ille
Secessus pios clericorum, qui Ordinandi veniebant, sedulo instituit.
Aderant plerumque magni nominis Episcopi. Pium caetum
animabat ipse Vincentius, quem cilm disserentem avidi audi-
remus, tune impleri Sentiebamus Apostolicum illud, “si quis
loquitur, tanquam sermones Dei. Nosque etiam non semel
invitati ut consuetos per illa tempora de rebus ecclesiasticis
sermones haberemus, pium laborem, optimi viri orationibus et
monitis freti, libenter suscepimus; licuitgue nobis affatim illo
frui in Domino, ejus virtutes coram intueri, praesertim genuinam
illam et Apostolican charitatem, gravitatem, atque prudentiam
cum admirabili simplicitate conjunctam, ecclesiasticae rei
studium, Zelum animarum, et adversis omnigenas corruptelas
invictissimum robur atque constantiam.”
The effect produced by the “Tuesday Conferences” of St.
Lazare, in raising the tone of feeling and the practical standard
of duty among the French clergy, was truly astonishing. It
was not long before they attracted the attention of the all-
powerful Richelieu, who with his usual penetration at once
* Collet, Vie de S. Vincent, tom. i. p. 333.
326 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. VIII.
appreciated their importance. He sent for Vincent de Paul,
and desired him to give a detailed account of the nature and
progress of his work, of which he expressed his approval. The
minister, moreover, took with his own hand a list of the mem-
bers of the Association, and invited Vincent to mention any
whom he deemed peculiarly qualified to be advanced in the
Church. A few were accordingly named ; and the Cardinal did
not fail, as opportunity offered, to recommend them to the
king for promotion to vacant sees. After Vincent had retired
on this occasion, Richelieu is said to have observed to his niece
the Duchess of Aiguillon, “I have always had a very high
opinion of M. Vincent ; but since my last interview with him,
I regard him as a totally different character from what I first
imagined.”
Among the earliest and most notable members of this clerical
association were Adrien Bourdoise, afterwards founder of the
seminary of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet; Jacques Olier, founder
and first superior of the Seminary of St. Sulpice; Jean Duval,
Bishop of Babylone, founder of the Congregation des Missions
Etrangères; Nicolas Pavillon, the saintly Bishop of Alet, so
conspicuous in the Jansenist controversy; Antoine Godeau,
Bishop of Grasse; and Louis Abelly, author of a well-known
‘Life of St. Vincent.’ The institution could reckon, even during
the lifetime of Vincent de Paul, the names of thirty-three
prelates, whose life and ministry had been moulded upon its
system ; besides a multitude of dignitaries of lower grades—
vicars-general, archdeacons, canons, directors of diocesan semi-
naries, superiors of religious houses, and parochial clergy.
Not satisfied with these labours for the regeneration of the
priestly order, Vincent de Paul commenced the practice of
holding retreats at St. Lazare for the laity of all classes and
conditions, and threw open his gates with indiscriminate bene-
volence to all applicants. Within a brief space the antique
halls of St. Lazare were more densely crowded with patients
tainted with moral leprosy than they had ever been in former
days with sufferers under physical disease. Vincent compared
his abode to Noah's Ark, where animals of every form, species,
and character were lodged together indifferently. It was, indeed,
a singular spectacle. This motley assemblage, frequenting the
same hospitable board, and listening to the same salutary in-
A.D. 1633. GENERAL RETREATS AT S. LAZARE. 327
structions, consisted of noblemen of the highest rank and of the
humblest sons of toil and penury; of enlightened magistrates
and simple artisans; of courtly men of fashion and rude un-
lettered peasants; of masters and servants; of old men heavily
burdened with the sins and follies of the past, and of youths
seeking by timely self-discipline to fortify themselves against
the struggles and temptations of the future. Vincent spared
no pains to render these retreats lastingly beneficial to his
guests, whom he called Eajercitants. He impressed upon them,
as a fundamental principle, that the object to be kept in view
by each was to render himself a perfect Christian according to
his appointed vocation; a perfect student, if called to a life of
study; a perfect lawyer or magistrate, if engaged in the pro-
fession of the law; a perfect soldier, if trained to arms; and so
with all other walks of life. Scrupulous caution was observed
with regard to those who seemed disposed to enter on a con-
ventual life. Vincent never permitted such persons to be de-
termined in their choice of a religious order by any one under
his control; and under no circumstances were they to be
encouraged to join the congregation of the Mission.” It has
been calculated that during the latter twenty-five years of
Vincent's life, near 20,000 persons availed themselves of the
privilege of making a “retreat” at St Lazare; so that his
visitors averaged about eight hundred in each year. Some
few of these paid their own charges during their sojourn, either
in part or in full ; but the majority contributed nothing at all,
either on account of insufficient means or from a mistaken idea
that the Lazarists were bound by their statutes to receive all
comers gratuitously. Large expenses were incurred in con-
sequence ; and many were the remonstrances made to the
Superior against what was deemed an extravagant and imprudent
outlay. But Vincent was proof against such considerations.
“If we had thirty years to live,” said he, “and if by our labours
* “Prenez bien garde, Messieurs,
lorsque vous donnez conduite a ceux
Qui Viennent faire leurs retraites spi-
rituelles en cette maison, de me jamais
leur rien dire qui tende à les attirer en
la Compagnie ; c'est à Dieu a y appeler,
et à en donner la première inspiration.
Quand même ils Vous decouvriraient
Qu'ils en ont la pensée, gardez vous
bien de les determiner de vous mêmes
a Se faire missionaires; mais alons dites-
leur Seulement qu'ils recommandent de
plus en plus ce dessein a Dieu ; qu'ils
y pensent bien, êtant une chose im-
portante. Laissons faire Dieu, Mes-
Sieurs, et nous temons humblement dams
l'attente et dans la dependance des
ordres de Sa Providence.” Collet, Liv.
iii. p. 501.
+ Collet, Liv. iii. p. 384.
32S THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. VIII.
in this work of Retreats we should shorten that space by one half,
we ought still to persevere in the same course. It is true that
the expense is great, but our funds cannot be better employed;
and if our house should become involved in debt, God can find
the means of extricating it, and His infinite goodness gives us
every reason to believe that He would do so in case of need.”
The institution of the “Filles de la Charité,” already men-
tioned, was entrusted by Vincent de Paul in 1633 to the direc-
tion of his devoted coadjutrix Madame Legras.” This Order
was originally intended to minister to the sick in country
parishes, where there were no hospitals at hand, and medical aid
could not be easily procured; but in process of time the sisters
were led to undertake other departments of charitable labour
among the poor. They were gradually introduced into the
hospitals, both in Paris and the provinces, as nurses for the sick;
they took charge of the education of foundlings, and conducted
female schools; they systematically visited the distressed and
destitute ; and they performed certain offices of compassion
even among prisoners condemned to the galleys. Their con-
stitutions, framed by Vincent de Paul, abound with wise regula-
tions and weighty admonitions. The founder points out that
although, from the nature of their employment, they cannot
lead a recluse life like other religious Societies, they ought never-
theless to be as strict in their conduct as the most austere
of cloistered nuns; more so, indeed, inasmuch as they were
more exposed to external perils than those who are altogether
debarred from intercourse with the world. Their monasteries,
he reminds them, would be in Ordinary cases the houses of
the sick; their cells, a hired lodging; their convent chapel, the
parish church; their cloisters, the streets of the city or the wards
of hospitals: their vow of seclusion, submission to their superior;
their grate, the fear of God; their veil, a holy and rigid
modesty. The other provisions of the Rule are conceived in the
same spirit of practical wisdom and elevated piety. After
having been tested by the experience of twenty years, it was
Richelieu. On her mother's side she
* This lady was the only daughter
was related to Jean Pierre Camus,
of Louis de Marillac, seigneur of
Ferrières, and niece of Michel de Ma-
rillac, keeper of the Seals, and of Mar-
shal de Marillac, both well-known
victims of the incxorable yengeance of
IBishop of Belley. Her husband, an
officer in the household of Mary de
Medici, left her a Widow in 1625. She
died in 1660, at the age of Seventy-eight.
A.D. 1633. COMPAGNIE DES DAMES DE CHARITE. 329
formally approved by Cardinal de Retz, Archbishop of Paris,
in 1655, and the letters patent were registered by the Parlia-
ment in the following year. The sceurs de la Charité-or “soeurs
grises” as they are sometimes called,—undergo a probation of
five years before they are admitted to their office. On this occa-
sion they take the three customary vows of religious profession,
to which a fourth is added, pledging them to labour for the
poor. These vows are made for the space of one year only,
and are renewable annually on the 25th of March, with the
previous permission of the Superior. The refusal or suspension
of this licence is regarded in the Order as the gravest of all
penances, and instances of its infliction are extremely rare.
A kindred association, also originated by Vincent de Paul,
and styled the “Compagnie des Dames de Charité,” acquired
great reputation and influence at Paris by its energetic labours
in the service of the sick and poor. Its members were chiefly
ladies of high rank; the Marquise de Magnelais, a daughter of
the house of Gondi, sister of the Archbishop of Paris; the
|Princess of Mantua, afterwards Queen of Poland ; Madame
d’Aligre, wife of the Chancellor of France; the “Presidente”
de Goussault, who became the first superior of the society;
Marie Fouquet, mother of the unfortunate finance minister of
Louis XIV. ; Madame de Lamoignon, wife of the famous magis-
trate of that name ; Madame de Herce; and the favourite
niece of Richelieu, the Marquise de Combalet, afterwards
Duchess of Aiguillon. At the meetings presided over by these
noble matrons benevolent schemes of all kinds were discussed
and organized; but the principal duty for which they made
themselves responsible was that of visiting the inmates of the
Hotel Dieu, or central hospital of Paris. In this undertaking
they were zealously seconded by Madame Legras and her
Filles de Charité; and a detachment of the latter community
was established for this purpose in a house adjoining the
hospital. On the recommendation of Vincent de Paul, the
ladies formed two divisions, the first having for its province
the religious instruction and consolation of the patients, while
the second ministered to their temporal necessities. Fourteen
members were elected every quarter, in the Ember week, to
compose each section; they attended two and two, by rotation,
at the Hôtel Dieu, every day in the week; and at the end of
330 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. VIII.
their term of service they made a report to the general
meeting of the Society, recording the course of their proceed-
ings, with any circumstances which might be useful for the
guidance and encouragement of those who were to replace
them. It may be well imagined that the spectacle of such
self-devotion in those whose birth had placed them on the
highest steps of society, and who were accustomed to every
luxury that wealth can procure, made a vivid impression upon
the inhabitants of Paris in general, independently of the direct
benefits conferred upon the sufferers in the hospital. The
gentleness, tenderness, and persevering patience displayed by
the Dames de Charité in the discharge of their functions was
followed by a signal reward. If we may credit the biographer
of Vincent de Paul, their success in the work of conversion was
such that in the course of a single year, and that the first year
of the Society’s existence, no less than seven hundred and sixty
heretics of different persuasions abjured their errors and em-
braced the Catholic faith.* The annual outlay of the institu-
tion in acts of corporal charity exceeded seven thousand livres.
Volumes would be required to give an adequate idea of the
multifarious labours of Vincent de Paul. New establishments
of “Priests of the Mission * were gradually formed in most of
the large towns of France, and earnest application was made
for their services in various foreign countries. In 1639 they
planted a colony at Annecy in Savoy; in 1642 they passed the
Alps into Italy, and were installed under the patronage of the
Duchesse d'Aiguillon in a spacious college at Rome; three years
later they were summoned to Genoa by Cardinal Durazzo; and
subsequently the Queen of Poland, Mary of Gonzaga, the same
who has been mentioned as one of the Dames de Charité, ex-
pressed a desire for their ministrations at Warsaw, where she
assigned them a house and Sufficient revenues.
The Lazarists were also entrusted with the management of
diocesan Seminaries in various parts of France; besides the
noble college at their head-quarters at St. Lazare, they suc-
cessively undertook the direction of similar institutions at
Saintes, Le Mans, St. Malo, Agen, Tréguier, and Narbonne.
This became one of their most fruitful fields of labour; and the
* Collet, Liv. iii. p. 436.
A.D. 1633. OLIER AND THE SEMINARY OF S. SULPICE. 331
names of St. Vincent de Paul and the Lazarists are inseparably
identified with the vital work of clerical education. The impulse
of their zeal raised up many earnest co-operators in the cause ;
among the most distinguished was Jean Jacques Olier, a man
scarcely second to Vincent himself in Saintly virtue and energetic
devotion to the duties of the ministry. Olier was one of those
pupils and associates of his early days for whom Vincent had
always cherished special affection and unreserved sympathy. On
being ordained priest in 1633, he undertook an important mission
in connexion with the Abbey of Pebrac in Auvergne; and such
was his reputation for ability at this early age, that Richelieu
offered him soon afterwards the appointment of coadjutor to
the Bishop of Chalons-sur-Marne. Olier, however, declined it,
from a strong conviction that he was called to exercise his
ministry in a different capacity, namely, as a founder and
director of Seminaries. Encouraged by Vincent de Paul,
Father Condren, Superior of the Oratory, and other experienced
advisers, Olier commenced in 1641 an institution of this kind
at Vaugirard, near Paris; and in the following year, having
accepted the charge of the parish of St. Sulpice, he transferred
his college to that locality. Here he ere long found himself
surrounded by a band of zealous associates, many of whom rose
in due time to the highest stations in the Church. Among those
who are best known to fame were François de Caulet, Bishop
of Pamiers, De Gondrin, Archbishop of Sens, and Claude Joly,
Bishop of Agen. Besides his chief establishment at St. Sulpice,
Olier became the founder of provincial Seminaries at Clermont,
Le Puy, Viviers, and Bourg St. Andéol; and an offshoot of his
congregation was planted even in the French colony of Montreal
in Canada. He abridged his life by his excessive labours, and
by unsparing asceticism; his death occurred in 1657, in his
forty-ninth year. Olier has always been reckoned among the
most illustrious sons of the Gallican Church. BOSSuet styles
him “virum praestantissimum ac sanctitatis odore florentem ; ”
he is eulogized by Fénélon as “vir traditus gratiae Dei, et
plané apostolicus; ” and in a letter from the Assembly of
the Clergy to Pope Clement XII., we find him extolled as
“eximium sacerdotem, insigne cleri nostri decus et orna-
* Corresp. de Fénelon, tom. iii., “Lettres Diverses,” No. 126.
332 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP, VIII.
mentum.” The congregation of St. Sulpice possessed, at the
epoch of the Revolution, five affiliated Seminaries at Paris, and
twelve in the provinces.”
Another successful labourer in the same department of Church
restoration was Claude Bernard, commonly known by the title
of “the poor Priest.” From the time of his ordination he dedi-
cated himself exclusively to ministrations among the poor, and
sacrificed for their benefit a fortune of 400,000 livres which had
been bequeathed to him. In 1638, on the auspicious occasion of
the birth of Louis XIV., Bernard instituted a college for the
education of priests at the Hotel d’Albiac, in the Rue de la
Montagne Ste. Géneviève. Anne of Austria was a munificent
contributor to this seminary, by way of thank-offering for what
she regarded as a signal token of Divine favour both to herself
and to France. The new establishment was entitled the “Semi-
mary of the Thirty-three,” in commemoration of the thirty-three
years of the Redeemer's life on earth. It was confined to the
reception of young students in needy circumstances, who would
not otherwise have been able to meet the expense of systematic
preparation for the ministry. Numbers of exemplary priests
were trained in this establishment for different posts of labour
in the Church; many of them devoted themselves with remark-
able success to the work of missions, both at home and abroad.
Claude Bernard closed his career in March, 1641, at the age of
fifty-three. He was succeeded in the government of his seminary
by his faithful coadjutor Thomas Le Gauffre, nephew of the
well-known Ambroise Le Gauffre, professor in the University of
Caen and canon of the Cathedral of Bayeux, who had formerly
followed the legal profession, and was one of the masters of the
Chambre des Comptes, but was won over by the influence of his
friend Bernard to embrace a religious life and enter the priest-
hood. Le Gauffre died in 1646, when he had just been desig-
nated to the see of the new French colony of Montreal. He
possessed a considerable fortune, and left by his will large
benefactions to the Seminary of the Thirty-three, as well as to
other charitable institutions at Paris.
* Vie de M. Olier, Fondateur du Seminaire de S. Sulpice, Paris, 1853.
A.D. 1604–18. REVIVAL OF THE BENEDICTINE RULE. 333
CHA PT ER IX.
THE memorable reformation of the Order of St. Benedict in
Erance was originated by Dom Didier de la Cour, prior of the
abbey of St. Vanne * at Verdun. After struggling with inflexible
constancy and courage against the torrent of degenerate example
that surrounded him, he succeeded in inducing some of his
brother monks, and a few novices who joined them, to re-establish
the Rule of St. Benedict in all its pristine severity. He was
supported by his superior the Bishop of Verdun, who was also
Abbot of St. Vanne; and Pope Clement VIII. issued a brief
expressly sanctioning the movement. By degrees the fame of
Didier de la Cour was extended far and wide; and applicants
arrived at St. Vanne from distant parts of France, as well as
from Germany and the Netherlands, Soliciting the particulars
of his system, and aid towards carrying out the same corrective
measures in other monasteries. The first abbey which embraced
the strict rule upon the model of St. Vanne was that of St.
Augustin at Limoges, where the abbot, Jean Regnault, intro-
duced it in 1613. The spirit of ancient discipline, once aroused,
spread rapidly on all sides; the abbeys of St. Faron at Meaux,
of St. Julien at Nouillé, of St. Pierre of Jumièges, and of Bernay,
followed the example of St. Vanne; and Didier de la Cour, so far
as the resources of his house allowed, despatched members of
his reformed congregation in various directions to explain his
system and superintend its inauguration in other convents.
But Lorraine, where St. Vanne was situated, did not form at
that period part of the kingdom of France; and in proportion as
the reformed rule continued to gain acceptance, it was found
difficult and almost impracticable to combine so many religious
houses in close dependence on an authority which was seated in
a foreign country. It was therefore determined, at a general
* St. Vanne or Venne (Vitonus in Latin) was a bishop of Verdun in the sixth
century. - # April 7, 1604.
334 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IX.
chapter of the Order held at Toul in May, 1618, that a distinct
Benedictine Congregation should be founded in France, to con-
sist of the convents where the restored discipline had been
already adopted, and of others which, in emulation of their zeal,
might be led from time to time to take a similar course. By a
special Act of the same date, it was ordained that the most
intimate friendship and sympathy should be maintained between
the two Congregations; that they should zealously promote
this by intercommunion in prayers, Sacraments, and works of
charity; and that thus they should compose in reality but one
corporate body. -
The person mainly instrumental in executing this design was
Laurent Bénard, doctor of the Sorbonne and prior of the College
of Cluny at Paris, who had some time previously made a journey
to St. Vanne for the purpose of renewing his profession according
to the reformed rule. He had for coadjutors several monks of
the abbey of St. Vanne, chosen for their piety and general merit
—Anselme Rolle, Colomban Regnier, Adrien Langlois, Maur
Tassin, Martin Taisnière, and Athanase de Mongin. In August
of the same year 1618 they obtained letters patent for the
erection of the new congregation, to which they gave the name
of the “Congregation of Saint-Maur,” from a venerated disciple
of St. Benedict, who towards the middle of the sixth century
first established the rule in France.” Bénard was encouraged
in his undertaking by various personages of high station and
authority; Cardinal de Retz, Cardinal de Sourdis, the presi-
dents Nicolai and de Hennequin, and particularly by Mathieu
Molé, at that time Procureur-General, afterwards first President
of the Parliament of Paris and Keeper of the Seals. The first
monastery of which the brethren of St. Maur obtained possession
at Paris was that of Blancs-Manteaux, where they were installed
on the 5th of September, 1618. During the next ten years
* Maurus founded the Abbey of
Glanfeuil in Anjou, which was after-
Wards called by his name, Saint Maur
sur Loire.
f Laurent Bénard was not spared
to witness more than this first step
towards the accomplishment of his great
object. He died at the Collège de
Cluni on the 20th of April, 1620, at the
age of forty-seven. His epitaph, written
by Hugues Ménard, then Professor of
Rhetoric at the same college, testifies
to the high estimation in which he was
held by his contemporaries. “Lau-
rentius Bénard Nivernensis, Prior Col-
legii Cluniacensis, Doctor Parisiensis,
non modó humaniorum politiorumque
litterarum peritissimus, Sed maximè in
rebus ecclesiasticis monasticisque longè
Versatus. Widit nascentem S. Mauri
A.D. 1631. CONGREGATION OF ST. MAUR. 335
the order made such rapid progress in the provinces, that no
less than forty convents had given in their adherence to the
new system when it was introduced into the magnificent abbey
of St. Denis “en France ’’ in 1633. But the most celebrated
seat of the Congregation of St. Maur was the abbey of St. Ger-
main des Près at Paris—perhaps the richest and most powerful
monastic foundation in the kingdom. This church and monastery
were originally built by King Childebert I., in 543, on the site
of a Roman temple of Isis, in the midst of some spacious meadows
bordering the left bank of the Seine. The abbey bore at first
the names of Ste. Croix and St. Vincent, but was afterwards re-
consecrated in honour of St. Germain Bishop of Paris, who was
interred there in the year 576. During the middle ages this
establishment acquired extraordinary privileges. It was a de-
pendency of the Holy See, and exempt from the jurisdiction of
the bishops of Paris. The abbot was invested with seigneurial
powers, possessing both the “haute’’ and the “basse justice,”
not only within the precincts of the monastery, but over a large
district of the city, comprising the modern Faubourg St.
Germain, and indeed almost the whole of Paris South of
the Seine. In later times (1667) an arrangement was entered
into by which the jurisdiction hitherto vested in the Abbot
of St. Germain des Près was transferred to the archbishop of
Paris, on condition that the Prior of the Abbey and his suc-
cessors should be ea officio Grand Vicars of the archdiocese,
and that the abbot should retain his jurisdiction as ordinary
within the precincts of the abbey. The corporate revenues of
the house amounted to 350,000 livres per annum, and the
abbot's income was 170,000 livres. This splendid appointment
was always held by a person of rank, not unfrequently by
princes of the blood royal. Louis XIII. conferred it in 1623
on his natural brother Henri de Bourbon (a son of Henry IV.
by Henriette de Balsac), who also held the episcopal see of
Metz. It was under the sanction of this prelate that the
Benedictines of St. Maur took possession of St. Germain des
|Près on the 14th of February, 1631, and it became thence-
congregationem, quam officio et amore publico bono monumenta.” – Tassin,
coluit, juvit operá, ac seipsum totum Hist. Litteraire de la Congreg. de S.
illi obtulit consecravitgue. Multa Sui Manū’.
ingenii posteritati reliquit atque edidit
336 TEIE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. IX.
forward the ordinary residence of the Superior-General of the
Congregation. .
Eventually the Benedictines of the Congregation of St. Maur
became the occupants of more than one hundred and eighty
conventual houses in different parts of France, which were
divided into six “provinces;” namely, 1. France. 2. Normandy.
3. Burgundy. 4. Toulouse. 5. Brittany. 6. Chezal-Benoit.
This celebrated body was governed by a Superior-general,
two assistants, and six visitors, who were elected every three
years at a general chapter of the order, held at Marmoutiers
near Tours. The Superiors of each monastery were also chosen
triennially ; but the General might retain office by successive
nominations during life.
One of the chief objects contemplated by the Benedictine
reform was to train up a Swccession of monks formed according
to the true pattern of primitive Monachism. With a view to
this one or more houses called Noviciates were established
in each “province” for the reception of young men preparing
to make profession of religion; from these, after one year's
probation, the candidates were transferred to different monas-
teries, where the two following years were devoted to a further
course of systematic training ; and these being completed, a
period of five years more was spent in the study of philosophy
and theology, with particular reference to the interpretation of
Scripture and of the works of the Fathers. These labours were
succeeded by a year which was termed the year of “recol-
lection;” this was prescribed as a special preparation for
receiving holy Orders; it was to be passed in strict retirement,
and exclusive application to devotional exercises.
During the earlier years of its history this noble institution
was directed with rare tact and energy by the first Superior
general," Dom Jean Gregoire Tarisse, who was elected in 1630.
His first care was to make a personal visitation of all the
monasteries, many of which he found in a state of lamentable
dilapidation, from the ravages of the religious wars and the
negligence of former abbots. The work of restoration was
* “Quoique d'autres eussent gou- c'est lui qui l’a étendue, et lui a donné
vermés cette Société naissante en qualité | Sa consistance.”—Relibien, Histoire de
de Presidens, Dom Tarisse passe pour | Paris, Vol. ii. 1352.
en avoir 6té premier Général, parceque
A.D. 1630–40. BENEDICTINES OF ST. MAUR, 337
commenced without delay, and Tarisse had the satisfaction of
seeing twenty Benedictine houses entirely rebuilt, and upwards
of fifty more or less repaired. Under his vigilant rule many
Scandalous abuses were reformed, animosities and contentions
were appeased, and strict discipline was re-established. Tarisse
was warmly supported in his plans by Cardinal Richelieu,
who made him a member of his “conseil de conscience,” and
frequently sought his advice. He also stood high in the esteem
of Anne of Austria; and lived on terms of confidential intimacy
with Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, the president Mathieu
Molé, and with Vincent de Paul. But perhaps the chief merit
of Tarisse consists in his having laid the foundations of that
illustrious school of ecclesiastical learning which has secured
for the Congregation of St. Maur the lasting gratitude and
admiration of succeeding ages. Himself a man not more
remarkable for fervent piety than for enlargement of mind and
cultivated taste, he laboured to kindle among the reformed
Benedictines a spirit of literary enterprise and industry.
Under his direction libraries were established in all the con-
vents, and the best-qualified brethren were employed in
collecting precious manuscripts and printed works on a wide
circle of subjects—classical antiquity, the Greek and Latin
Fathers, the oriental languages, history, archaeology, hagio-
logy—which had hitherto been very imperfectly explored by
the scholar and the critic. The impulse thus given to various
branches of study wrought astonishing effects. Troops of
enthusiastic students thronged the venerable cloisters of S.
Germain des Près, whose immense services to the Church and
to the world of letters have rendered their names and fame
imperishable.”
Tarisse, who had long been suffering from the inroads of
a painful and incurable disease, resigned his charge in the year
1648, and died a few months afterwards. But he left behind
him at S. Germain des Près men formed under his own eye
and by the power of his own example, and amply qualified to
carry on the work to which his life had been devoted. The
most conspicuous of his immediate followers was Dom Jean
* See Histoire lilteraire de la Congregation de S. Maur, par Dom Réné Prosper
Tassin,
VOI. I. Z
338 THE GALLICAN CHURCHI. CHAP. IX.
Luc d'Achery, a native of St. Quentin, where he was born in
1609. He originally made his profession at the Benedictine
convent of that town, but migrated in 1632 to the Abbey of the
Holy Trinity at Vendôme, which was then in the hands of
the Congregation of S. Maur. Shortly afterwards he was
induced to remove to S. Germain des Près at Paris, and in
that establishment he passed the remainder of his life. Here
the Superior-general Tarisse, quickly appreciating his talents,
appointed him curator of the library ; and he at once com-
menced his labours by drawing up accurate catalogues of its
vast contents, among which were manuscripts of great value,
mouldering in the accumulated dust of centuries of neglect.
The results of his researches were given to the world from time
to time in a series of learned tomes, consisting chiefly of works
never before published. The most celebrated production of
D'Achery is that entitled ‘Veterum aliquot scriptorum qui in
Galliae bibliothecis, maximè Benedictinorum, latuerant, Spici-
legium. Under this modest appellation he edited a voluminous
collection of materials for the Church history of the middle
ages; chronicles, acts and canons of Councils, lives of Saints,
charters of religious houses, royal grants, poetical pieces,
letters, and a mass of other documents which had never
hitherto seen the light. The work extends to thirteen volumes
quarto. It is to D'Achery, moreover, that the Church is
indebted for the conception, and in part for the execution, of
that noble undertaking which was completed after his death
by his associate and disciple Mabillon, the ‘Acta Sanctorum
Ordinis Sancti Benedicti.” This appeared in nine folio volumes,
the first of which was published in 1668.
The female communities of the Benedictine rule were by
no means behindhand in this great movement of conventual
reform. One of them, the Abbey of Port Royal des Champs,
has obtained a world-wide celebrity, not only on account of the
extraordinary character of the Abbess by whom its restoration
was effected, but also from its close connexion with that con-
troversy on the doctrines of free will, election, and efficacious
grace, which agitated the Church during the latter half of the
17th century. For this very reason, however, it is a matter of
no small difficulty to disentangle the complicated web of this
eventful history; for where party interests are deeply involved,
A.D. 1599. PORT ROYAL DES CEIAMPS. 339
the recklessness of party spirit never hesitates to warp and
distort facts in different directions in favour of some foregone
conclusion. The pens which have delineated Port Royal have
seldom, if ever, been free from partiality and prejudice; the
reason of which is manifest. Not only did the great struggle
of which it was the centre array in two antagonist camps the
ablest thinkers and writers of the particular age which gave it
birth, but the results of that struggle have survived from that
day to the present; they are continually reappearing on the
surface of Church history; continually forcing themselves on
the attention of observant minds, under manifold phases and
varying designations. Nor are they matters of exclusive
moment to the Roman Communion. Every section of Christen-
dom, every School of religious sentiment, has its interest, more
or less, in encouraging this or that view of the disputed questions
and the exciting, yet often obscure, transactions identified with
the story of Port Royal.
The Abbey of Port Royal des Champs *, was situated in a
deep valley near the town of Chevreuse, fifteen miles south-west
of Paris. It was founded in the year 1204 by Mathilde de
Garlande, wife of Mathieu de Marli, a cadet of the noble house
of Montmorency, who had set out two years before to join the
Fourth Crusade. Port Royal belonged to the order of Ber-
nardines or Cistercians, which followed substantially the rule of
St. Benedict; and was subject to the jurisdiction of the Abbot
of Citeaux. The close of the 16th century found Port Royal,
like the majority of the religious houses in France, in a state
of scandalous degeneracy. Its professed rule was ignored; the
nuns had ceased to observe even the law of seclusion; the pre-
scribed routine of daily devotion and ascetic exercises was
exchanged for habits of frivolous amusement and luxurious
indulgence. In 1599 Marie Angélique Arnauld, at that time a
child between eight and nine years of age, was appointed
coadjutrix to Jeanne de Boulchard, the Abbess; and this
event, however unpromising in appearance, led to a com-
plete revolution in the state of affairs both in that and in
many other French convents, and made them no less distin-
guished for exact regularity and high-souled piety than they
* Abregé de l’Histoire de Port Royal, par M. Racine, de l'Académie Françoise,
Paris, 1770. Bonav. Racine, LIist. Eccles., tom, X, p. 472 et Seqq.
Z 2
340 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IX.
had once been motorious for negligence, sloth, and worldliness.
It need hardly be observed that the admission of a girl like
Angélique to the cloistered state (as well as of her sister
Agnes, who at the same time became Abbess of St. Cyr) was a
flagrant infraction of the canons, though by no means unusual
in those days. Immediately after taking the vows Angélique
was placed in the Cistercian convent of Maubuisson near
Pontoise, of which Angélique d’Estrées, a sister of La Belle
Gabrielle, the mistress of Henry IV., was then superior. Here
she remained till the summer of 1602, when, upon the death of
the Abbess de Boulchard, she proceeded to take possession
of her office at Port Royal, and was consecrated by the Superior
general of the order, the Abbot of Citeaux. On the same day
she made her first communion, having at this time just com-
pleted her eleventh year.
There were then at Port Royal only eleven professed nuns
(three of whom were in a state of imbecility) and three novices.
The confessor of the convent was grossly ignorant, the sisters
careless and light-minded. The Holy Eucharist was celebrated
in the chapel only once a month and on the greater festivals.
Preaching had been wholly disused for thirty years past.
Masquerades and other unbecoming exhibitions were practised
during the Carnival. During the next six years the new abbess
allowed things to continue in the same course; but at the end
of that time her mind was providentially awakened, and re-
ceived profound religious impressions, through the preaching of
a vagrant Capuchin friar, who visited Port Royal apparently
by accident, and was requested to occupy the pulpit in the
convent church. From this epoch (Lent, 1608) Angélique dated
her conversion ; and marvellously indeed did that event de-
velop the latent faculties both of her intellectual and moral
nature. She now determined to undertake a radical reforma-
tion of the abbey; to practise the rule of St. Benedict in all
its severity herself, and to enforce its observance by those over
whom she was set in authority. Her first step was to make a
solemn renewal of her vows, as she held her former profession
to be invalid on account of the uncanonical age at which it had
been made. She next caused the convent to be walled in, and
exacted from the nuns a rigid compliance with the primary
obligation of seclusion. Angélique took care to exhibit in her
A.D. 1618. THE ABBESS ANGELIQUE. 341
own person an example of the strictness and self-abnegation
which she required from others. On one remarkable occasion
(known in the convent annals as the “Journée du guichet,”
September 25th, 1609), she refused admission even to her own
father and mother and other near relatives; nor could their
passionate tears and angry remonstrances induce her to revoke
this prohibition. By degrees, though not without stubborn
opposition, Angélique succeeded in winning over the whole
sisterhood of Port Royal to her own views. Her gentleness
and patience, combined with transparent sincerity and stead-
fastness of purpose, were irresistible; and within the space of
five years she had re-established all the rigorous observances
of the Benedictine rule.
The reforms at Port Royal became famous; emulation was
excited ; and although the work was ridiculed in many quarters,
and even condemned by several of the Superiors of the Order,
the services of Angélique were soon put in requisition in behalf
of other Benedictine houses, and the movement rapidly ex-
tended throughout the north of France. In February, 1618,
Angélique was commissioned by the Abbot of Citeaux to assume
the temporary government of the convent of Maubuisson, where
she had spent some years of her early youth. The Abbess
d’Estrées had recently been removed from office for gross mis-
conduct, and confined, by order of the Parliament, in a peniten-
tiary at Paris. Angélique repaired without delay to Maubuisson,
taking with her four sisters from Port Royal, and laboured
energetically to improve its condition; but in the course of a
few months the deposed abbess found means to escape from her
imprisonment, and reappeared at Maubuisson under the escort
of a band of gay cavaliers from Paris, with whose assistance
she forcibly expelled Angélique and her nuns, and resumed her
place as abbess. She was speedily recaptured by a guard of
soldiers under the “Prevöt de l'Isle" in person, and once more
consigned to prison. Angélique was now reinstated in peace-
able possession of the convent, and remained there for nearly
five years, during which time she carried out her plans of
reformation with eminent success, particularly by introducing
many fresh nuns of a poorer class, whom she trained assiduously
On her own system.
During her sojourn at Maubuisson the Abbess Angélique
342 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IX.
became acquainted with St. François de Sales, who had come to
Paris in 1618 on a mission from his sovereign the Duke of Savoy,
to demand the hand of the Princess Christine, sister of Louis
XIII., for the Prince of Piedmont. The Bishop of Geneva visited
both Maubuisson and Port Royal, and at the latter convent
administered the Sacrament of Confirmation. Relations of con-
fidential friendship were ere long established between him and
the abbess; she placed herself under his spiritual guidance,
and corresponded with him constantly until his death.* That
event took place on his journey back to his diocese from this
last visit to the French capital, on the 28th of December, 1622.
Through St. François Angélique was also brought into close
communication with Madame de Chantal, who, in 1619, opened
a convent of the Visitandines at Paris. These two highly-gifted
women were not long in learning to appreciate each other, and
there ensued between them a correspondence which was kept
up uninterruptedly for more than twenty years, to their great
mutual comfort and edification.
In addition to her work at Maubuisson, Angélique Arnauld
became the instrument of revived discipline at the Benedictine
houses of Le Lys, near Melun ; St. Aubin and Gomerfontaine,
in Normandy; and the Iles d'Auxerre and Tard, in Burgundy.
Detachments of nuns were sent from Port Royal to undertake
these charitable missions as opportunity offered ; and Angélique
found a zealous auxiliary in her sister Agnes, Abbess of St. Cyr,
who supplied her place as coadjutrix at Port Royal during her
absence. An abbess of respectable character having at length
been nominated to Maubuisson, Angélique finally quitted that
convent and returned to Port Royal in March, 1623, attended
by a train of twenty-five nuns, who had taken the vows during
her residence there, and whom she had inspired with such
affectionate attachment that they refused to leave her. Such
was now the flourishing state of the community governed by
Angélique, that Port Royal no longer afforded the accommoda-
tion necessary for their numbers; the convent, moreover, was
* During a sermon which he replied the prelate, “God has revealed
preached at Port Royal, St. François
was suddenly overcome by deep emo-
tion, and was obliged to pause for some
moments. The abbess afterwards in-
quired the cause: “Alas, Madame,”
to me that your house will fall away
from the Faith. The only way to pre-
serve it is to be obedient to the Holy
See.”—Vie de S. François de S. par le
Curé de S. Sulpice, tom. ii. p. 216.
A.D. 1626. PORT ROYAL DE PARIS. 343
in a damp, unhealthy situation, where the inmates suffered
much from the defective drainage. Angélique was induced
by these causes to obtain permission to transfer the establish-
ment to Paris. Through the kind liberality of her mother,
Madame Arnauld, and other ladies of distinction, a large
house in the Faubourg S. Jacques was appropriated to their
use;” and thither Angélique removed, with her whole sister-
hood of eighty-four nuns, in the year 1626. Their ancient
habitation, thenceforth known as Port Royal des Champs, was
left in charge of a single chaplain, to celebrate divine offices;
and it subsequently became the residence of that illustrious
company of recluses, whose names will be familiar to the latest
posterity as “Messieurs de Port Royal.”
Further measures were adopted not long afterwards, which had
an important bearing on the destinies of Port Royal. In 1627,
a brief was procured from Pope Urban VIII., by which the con-
vent was withdrawn from the jurisdiction of the Abbot of Citeaux,
and placed under that of the diocesan, the Archbishop of Paris.
The step was taken from the most disinterested motives; but it
proved, as the sequel will show, the source of some of the heaviest
trials which befel the community in its days of persecution.
Another object which Angélique had much at heart was accom-
plished in 1629: when Louis XIII, renounced by letters patent
the right of the Crown to nominate the superiors of Port Royal,
and ordained that for the future the appointment should be
made by election, and triennially. The necessary formalities
having been completed, Angélique Arnauld divested herself of
her abbatial dignity in the presence of the official of the Arch-
bishop of Paris, in July, 1630; her sister Agnes resigning at
the same time the office of coadjutrix, on the express condition
that the reforms already introduced at the convent should be
strictly maintained. The first election under the new arrange-
ments took place on the 23d of July, when Marie Geneviève le
Tardif was chosen Abbess, and retained the appointment, by a
re-election three years afterwards, till 1636.
Up to this time Port Royal had not contracted any peculiar
theological bias. During the earlier period of her career, the
* The Convent of . Port Royal de lution, is at the present day the “Hôpi-
Paris, after having served as a prison | tal de la Maternité,” or Lying-in
for the aristocratic detenus of the Revo- || Hospital.
344 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IX.
opinions of Angélique and her associates were mainly influenced
by the teaching of St. François de Sales; whose views of the
mysterious doctrines of Grace were such as might be expected
from his own generous and warm-hearted nature, as well as from
his dispassionate study of the divinity of all schools and all ages,
which preserved him from the snares of sectarian extravagance.
St. François had learned to regard human nature, notwithstand-
ing its fall from original righteousness, as still instinctively
disposed to love God and goodness; but although disposed, he
knew that man is not able to love God as he ought without the
aid of Supernatural grace. The human will, he taught, although
degenerate, yet possesses the faculty of co-operating with Divine
grace; according to the text “Whosoever hath, to him shall be
given, and he shall have more abundance.” “It is certain,” thus
he expresses himself in the ‘Traité sur l’amour de Dieu, “it is
certain that to him who is faithful in a little, and performs what
lies in his power, the loving-kindness of God never denies His
assistance to carry him forward more and more.” “ Turing the
violent discussions which arose from the work of the Jesuit
Molina, ‘De liberi arbitrii cum gratiae donis concordiá,” St.
François de Sales maintained a discreet reserve, declining, when
consulted, to commit himself on either side ; and with the
wisdom of this course he had full reason to be satisfied, when,
after the protracted debates of the Congregation “de Auxiliis,”
which occupied no less than eleven years, the Supreme autho-
rity of the Church adjourned the question indefinitely, and
refrained from pronouncing any positive decision. The time,
however, was now approaching, when this interminable contro-
versy was to be revived under new auspices. Fresh champions
were ready to descend into the lists, whose resources, resolution,
and enthusiasm promised anything rather than a speedy adjust-
ment of their quarrel. After the death of St. François de Sales,
the community of Port Royal selected as their spiritual adviser
Zamet, Bishop of Langres, a prelate who in early life had made
a figure in the brilliant circles of the court, but had latterly
renounced his worldly habits, and was distinguished for his
devotion to the duties of the pastoral care. Zamet, in conjunc-
* See his Letter to the Jesuit Lessius, quoted by Crétineau-Joly, Hist, de la
Comp, de Jesus, tom. iii. p. 23.
A.D. 1630. MAISON DU SAINT SACREMENT. 345
tion with the Duchess of Longueville, formed the project of a
religious house dedicated to the perpetual adoration of our
Lord in the Sacrament of the Eucharist; and having obtained a
bull for the purpose from Rome, and letters patent from the
Crown (which were granted with much difficulty in 1630) he
commenced the work in a hired house in the Rue Coquillière,
and placed Angélique at the head of the institution. Her sister
Agnes, who likewise became an inmate of the “Maison du Saint
Sacrément,” composed, for her private edification, a little book
entitled “Le Chapelet secret du S. Sacrément.’ It was divided
into sixteen heads, corresponding with the number of centuries
since the institution of the Eucharist; and contained under each
head some spiritual meditations suggested by one of the attri-
butes or offices of the Divine Redeemer. This production was
greatly admired by the sisters, several of whom copied it for
their own use; and in course of time, having been approved by
the Bishop of Langres, it appeared in print. A keen controversy
arose upon its merits. It was attacked by Father Binet, a Jesuit;
and Jean du Werger de Hauranne, Abbot of St. Cyran, who had
already made himself known as an opponent of that Society,
employed his pen in its defence. It is insinuated, indeed, by
D'Avrigny and others of his school, that the authorship of the
‘Chapelet secret” belonged to St. Cyran himself; so closely
does it correspond with his known sentiments and style. But
for this surmise there is no foundation. St. Cyran was at that
time a total stranger to Port Royal. The manual was condemned
by Duval and seven other doctors of the Sorbonne (June 18,
1633) as containing much that was erroneous, extravagant, and
even impious; whereupon St. Cyran, to counterbalance this
censure, procured an approbation of the work from his friend
Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, and from another well-known doctor
of the University of Louvain. Theologians being thus divided
in opinion, the question was referred to Rome; and the Sovereign
Pontiff pronounced that the volume was not deserving of censure
on the score of false doctrine, but that it was expedient, never-
theless, to withdraw it from circulation, lest it might be misused
by the simple and inexperienced to their injury. The ‘Chapelet
secret” was accordingly suppressed. The chief interest of this
occurrence consists in its having been the means of bringing the
Abbé de St. Cyran into connexion with Angélique Arnauld and
346 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. IX.
the Society of Port Royal ;-a connexion from which may be
dated the rise of Jansenism in the Church of France.* The
Bishop of Langres, delighted with the versatile talents and
acquirements displayed by St. Cyran, took the first opportunity
of introducing him to the sisterhood of the St. Sacrément; and
in the following year, 1636, on the return of Angélique to Port
Royal de Paris, the Abbé was formally installed as director of
the community. It would be premature to enter farther into
the details of this portion of our narrative until other events
have been reviewed, which will serve to show how closely Port
Royal is identified with the general stream of the ecclesiastical
history of the time. - , '
* º Une doctrine de réforme morale
ne vaut que par l'application, et ne
compte dans le monde que du jour où
elle se réalise dans une groupe qui
croit et pratique. Saint Cyran trouva
enfin un terrain propice. Il s'était ren-
contré avec une femme qui, en de hors
des querelles dogmatiques, avait tenté
| de réaliser, depuis vingt cinq ans, au
fond de son cloître, cette transformation
des âmes qu'il rêvait. De 1635 à 1636
la Mère Angélique passa, avec ses
Bénédictines, sous la direction spi-
rituelle de Saint Cyran. Dès lors celui-
ci eût une base d'operations.''— H.
Martin, Hist. de Fr., tom. xii. p. 83.
A.D. 1635. ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF RICHELIEU. 347
C EIAPTIER X.
RICHELIEU displayed, in his administration of ecclesiastical
affairs, the same qualities which characterized his civil policy;-
the same all-grasping ambition, the same penetrating discern-
ment of the capacities and tendencies of others, the same im-
placable windictiveness, the same determination to uphold with
a high hand the independent nationality of Fränce. It was
clear, from the outset of his ministry, that he was not one to
allow himself to be embarrassed by ordinary scruples, either
in the shaping of his public measures or with regard to personal
interests. Though a prince of the Church, he was not unfre-
quently in a state of open variance with the Court of Rome.
These differences had their origin in his own inordinate
greediness of power. One of his first acts was to solicit the
appointment of perpetual Legate of the Holy See, which had
formerly been held by the Cardinal of Amboise, prime minister
of Louis XII. ; but his arrogant character had already inspired
the Pope with jealousy, and no disposition was shown to gratify
him. The coveted dignity was offered to him for three months,
but this he would not condescend to accept.” He next applied
for the inferior office of Legate of Avignon; but here again
he met with a mortifying refusal. Further causes of irritation
followed. The Cardinal, as we have seen, had no hesitation in
preferring the Protestant to the Catholic alliance, when he
judged that course more conducive to the advantage of France,
and the general maintenance of the balance of power in
Europe. This offence naturally made him distrusted at Rome,
and his views were, in consequence, thwarted so far as this
could be done without risking a serious rupture. Richelieu was
already Abbot of Cluny, one of the highest and most lucrative
preferments in the French Church. In 1635 he was named
Superior-General of Citeaux, on the resignation of the Abbot
* D'Avrigny, Mémoires, tom. ii. p. 133.
348 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
Nivelles, who earnestly recommended him as his successor, on
the score of his zeal for the reformation of the monastic system.
A similar honour was conferred upon him by the Premonstra-
tensian Order; so that these proceedings, if confirmed, would
have united in his hands the government of three of the
most powerful Societies in Europe. But opposition was made
by some of the subordinate houses, both in France and else-
where: and Urban VIII., nothing loth, refused the bulls of
institution. He also negatived a proposal made by Richelieu
to reform the Order of Cluny by incorporating it with the
newly-formed Congregation of St. Maur.” Another grievance
much resented by the minister was the Pope's obstinate refusal
to bestow a cardinal's hat on his confidential friend and agent,
the Capuchin Father Joseph.
Matters became complicated by fresh affronts and misunder-
standings. The Roman Chancery had lately grown extortionate
in its pecuniary demands on promotion to episcopal sees, and
in assessing that most unpopular impost, the annates. It had
been also ordered that the testimonials of character (informa-
tions de Vie et de moeurs), required by Church dignitaries
nominated by the Crown, should be sought, not, as heretofore,
from the diocesan ordinaries, but from the Apostolic Nuncio,
in manifest derogation of the “Gallican liberties.” f From
these causes several French sees had remained long vacant, the
bishops-designate being unable to obtain the necessary Papal
mandate for their consecration. These difficulties were in-
creased by the fact that the office of “Protector of France” at
Rome, though nominally held by Cardinal Antonio Barberini,
was practically in abeyance, since the Pope would not allow his
nephew to discharge the duties belonging to it.}
Richelieu instigated the clergy to complain loudly of these
and other abuses. It was suggested that the proper remedy
was the convocation of a National Council, to settle by its
own authority the internal concerns of the Gallican Church.
Canonical appointments might be made, it was urged, without
* Memoires de Richelieu, Liv. xxviii. Lettre coxlvii.
+ Mémoires d’Omer Talom, tom. , i. § Memoires de Richelieu, Liv. xxix.
(Petitot.) Aubery, Eſist du Card. Levassor, Hſist. de Louis XIII., Liv.
Mazarim, Liv. i. | xxxvi. Lettres du Card. de Richelieu.
i See Richelicu's letter to the Pope, ' Lett. ccxliv, Au Marechal de Créqui,
A.D. 1636–9. OUTCRY FOR A GALLICAN SYNOD. 349
the formality of institution by the Pope; and his Holiness
ought to be plainly informed that, if the bulls for the vacant
sees were not at once forthcoming, France would dispense with
them altogether. It appears, indeed, that an Order of Council
was made and signed, forbidding the king's subjects to apply
in future to the Court of Rome for any such purposes. But
the Parliament, for some technical reason, objected to register
it; and the Nuncio, through the good offices of Father Joseph,
succeeded in obtaining a postponement of the measure until
fresh instructions should arrive from the Pope, whom he repre-
Sented as willing to give the king satisfaction.*
The outcry for a Gallican Synod, however, continued; and
it began to be hinted that such an assembly might judge it
expedient to take further steps towards readjusting the rela-
tions between France and Rome. It might go so far as to
annul the Concordat of Bologna, renounce subjection to the
Pope beyond acknowledging the primacy of his see, and place
Trance under the government of an independent Patriarch.
Grotius, who was at Paris at the time in the capacity of Envoy
from the Queen of Sweden, mentions, in one of his letters to
the Chancellor Oxenstiern, that such a report was in circula-
tion; and adds that it was generally believed that Richelieu
himself would be raised to this new ecclesiastical dignity.t
That the idea was canvassel, at this moment of excitement, is
certain; but it is not likely that the Cardinal ever had any
serious intention of putting it in execution.
As if to aggravate these bitter feelings, an Outrage was
offered about the same time to the French ambassador at Rome
in the person of one of his servants, who was killed in an affray
with the police. The Pope, too, showed his ill-will by refusing to
perform the accustomed funeral service on the death of Cardinal
de la Valette, one of Richelieu’s most devoted adherents. Louis
and his minister retaliated at once by forbidding the Papal
Nuncio Scoti to appear at Court, and commanding the bishops
and clergy to hold no communication with him till further orders.
The ambassador D'Estrées was, in like manner, instructed to
break off all intercourse with the Pope and his ministers.f
* Le Vassor, Hist, de Louis XIII., den, Epist. 982. -
Div. xliii. - t D'Avrigny, Mémoires, tom. ii. p.
f Grotius to the Chancellor of Swe- || 136. Omer Talon, Mémoires, tom. i.
350 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
The publication of the famous work of the brothers Du-
puy, entitled ‘ Preuves des libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane,’ was
another circumstance which, occurring at this juncture, Served
to widen the breach between the courts of France and Rome.
It appeared at first anonymously; but the name of the author
was no secret, and he was known to write under the patronage
and protection of Richelieu. The book was based upon the
treatise of Pierre Pithou, but contained a vast additional col-
lection of documents from various sources, which, instead of
establishing the franchises of the Church, illustrated the tyran-
nical excesses and unlawful assumptions of the Crown. Every
case was carefully enumerated in which the authority of the
Pope, or, indeed, ecclesiastical authority in general, had been
attacked with success by the secular power; and these were
designated, by a perverse misnomer, proofs of the liberty of the
Gallican Church. They were, in reality, proofs of the rise and
progress of Erastianism.
Much clamour was raised against this volume by the clergy,
and Richelieu found it necessary to order it to be suppressed
by the Council of State.” Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, sum-
moning a meeting of prelates at his abbey of Ste. Geneviève,
denounced the work as schismatical and heretical; and the
other bishops were exhorted, in a circular letter, to prohibit
it in their dioceses. But these measures seem to have had
little effect. The sale of Dupuy's compilation proceeded with
scarcely an affectation of Secresy, both in Paris and the
provinces.
During the year 1640 the rumours of an impending rupture
between France and the Holy See acquired still wider currency.
The enemies of Richelieu strove to bring him into odium by
stimulating the popular apprehensions on the subject; and with
* November 20, 1638. The reason
alleged was that it was published with-
out the official “privilege.” Grotius
complains of this step to the Chan-
cellor Oxenstierm, in a letter dated
Jan. 12 (22), 1639. “Quantum haec
evulgatio nocere Sibi posset, satis intel-
lexit Pontificis nuntius, multumque
moliendo, adjutoribus et momachis,
effecit tandem, ut pro rege et reguo
factus liber, a consilio regio, nonline
regis ipsius, divendi vetaretur. Ita,
Sub regibus aut ignaris aut ignavis,
tantum saepe fit damni, quantum suc-
cessores agrè Sarciant; mirumque est
pro regibus scribi Lutetiae non licere,
cium Romae quotidie contra reges et
eorum jura libri fiant.”—Grot., Epist.
1103. Edit. Amstelodam. 1687.
f Collection des procès-verbawa, du
Clergé de France, tom. iii., “Pièces jus-
tificatives.”
A.D. 1640. “ OPTATUS GALLUS.” 351
this view a treatise was put forth under an assumed name,
entitled, “Optati Galli de cavendo Schismate liber paraeneticus.’
The author was Charles Hersent, a priest of the diocese of Paris.
His pseudonym, Optatus Gallus, was an apposite allusion to
Optatus Bishop of Milevis in the fourth century, who distin-
guished himself by a powerful exposure of the Schism of the
Donatists. In emulation of this African prelate, Hersent raised
the note of solemn admonition against the threatened divorce
of the French Church from the centre of Catholic unity. He
descanted on the manifold causes of alarm which had arisen from
recent events; the scandalous misrepresentation of the Gallican
liberties; the continued circulation of Dupuy's brochure, in de-
fiance of the sentence of the bishops and the Order of Council
for its suppression; the resistance to the customary payments
to the Pope on ecclesiastical promotions — a resistance well.
known to be sanctioned, if not prompted, by the Cardinal-
minister; and a recent declaration by the king concerning the
validity of marriages, which was at variance with the decrees
of Trent and with the constant practice of the Church. Hersent
protested further against the perilous scheme of setting up a
Patriarch in France, which, if realised, would place the Gallican
Church in the self-same predicament with the schismatical
establishment in England. This attack was sternly repulsed by
the authorities of Church and State. The Parliament ordered
the libellous production of Optatus Gallus to be burnt by the
public hangman; the Archbishop of Paris and his comprovin-
cials branded it with unanimous censure, as “false, Scandalous,
malicious, and injurious to the peace of the realm.” Richelieu
commissioned several divines to refute the fallacious reason-
ings of Hersent. One of them, a Jesuit named Rabardeau,
published a pamphlet under the title of ‘ Optatus Gallus de
cavendo schismate benignâ manu Sectus,’ in which he main-
tained that the appointment of a Patriarch by a national Church
is by no means a schismatical act; and that the consent of the
Pope was not more necessary for such a step in France than it
had been in ancient times for the creation of the patriarchates
of Jerusalem and Constantinople.” The Roman Inquisition
* D'Avrigny observes (Mém. Chrono- creation of the Eastern Patriarchates,
log., tom. ii. p. 142) that there could be inasmuch as it did not deprive the
no offence to the See of Rome in the Pope of any part of his jurisdiction as
352 ' TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
condemned this performance, and the sentence was officially
recognized by the assembly of French clergy in the session of
1645.” -
The same occasion gave birth to another literary under-
taking of far greater importance, namely the celebrated work
of Pierre de Marca, ‘De Concordiá. Sacerdotii et Imperii. The
reader will remember that De Marca's high reputation for
learning, both in civil and canon law, had procured for him,
Some years previously, the appointment of first President of
the Parliament of Béarn. He now received, through Richelieu,
the king's commands to exercise his talents in exposing the
Sophistries of Optatus Gallus. No man in the kingdom, pro-
bably, was better qualified for the task. De Marca's profound
acquaintance with antiquity had taught him that the rightful
“liberties” of the Church were compatible both with the au-
thority of the Apostolic See and with the independence of the
civil power; and that neither the Pope nor the Crown could
have just cause to complain, provided the original laws and
institutions of Christendom were maintained in their integrity.
Such are the principles on which his work is founded;—a work
of elaborate and exhaustive research, which has never been
surpassed in the department of ecclesiastical lore to which it
relates. Notwithstanding all the prudence and discretion of the
author, however, it gave offence at Rome; and when De Marca
was named, in 1642, to the bishopric of Conserans, he was
denied canonical institution. For more than five years his pro-
motion was obstructed, and it was not till he had published a
supplementary treatise, in which some of his former statements
were explained, some altered, and some withdrawn, that the
impediment was at length removed by Innocent X.
Thus dubious were the relations of the Gallican Church
with the Roman curia under the despotic rule of Richelieu.
Urban VIII., however, though an ambitious Pontiff, possessed
considerable address and Self-command. He was peremptory
Patriarch of the West; whereas the aecumenical bishop, the erection of inde-
establishment of a Patriarch in France pendent Patriarchates in the East,
would have robbed him of an important without his sanction, must surely have
province which had been immemorially been an invasion of his rights.
subject to his authority. But if the * Mémoires du Clergé de France,
Pope be (what the Ultramontane hypo- tom. i. p. 636.
thesis maintains him to be) whiversal,
A.D. 1632. THE “DIABLES DE LOUDUN.” 353
in the assertion of his rights, but he never allowed his differ-
ences with the French Government to go beyond the reach of
explanation and satisfactory adjustment.
An affair of another nature belongs to the same period,
which cannot be passed over without notice, though it is
difficult to arrive at a complete elucidation of the circum-
stances. Various theories have been framed respecting them ;
but, whatever interpretation may be preferred, an equally
singular picture meets us of the state of religious feeling, and
of public opinion in general, under the ministry of Richelieu.
Some of the details, if their date were not known, might be
mistaken for legends of the darkest and most barbarous age.
Towards the end of the year 1632, certain strange phenomena
made their appearance among the nuns of the Ursuline convent
at Loudun in Poitou. Many of them were seized with a sudden
and mysterious infatuation. They uttered unearthly cries, threw
their bodies into frightful contortions, and practised other ex-
travagances, which led to the conclusion that they were either
bereft of reason or victims of a demoniacal possession. The
latter persuasion quickly prevailed; and great was the commo-
tion when it became known that the patients, in their frenzied
ravings, had accused one of the parish priests of the same town
of bewitching them by magical arts. This was Urbain Grandier,
curé of St. Pierre and canon of Ste. Croix at Loudun. He is
described as a man gifted with many outward graces and engaging
qualities, but withal vain and presuming, and of irregular morals.
His natural and acquired advantages on the One hand, and his
notorious licentiousness on the other, had made him an object
of jealousy and ill-will, particularly among his clerical brethren.
He had excited envy, moreover, by his talents as a preacher, and
had taken a prominent part in defending the rights of the
secular clergy against the encroachments of the monks and
friars. For these reasons a priest named Mignon, confessor to
the Ursuline sisterhood, was his sworn enemy ; and Mignon
conspired with other ecclesiastics to effect his ruin. Whether
the whole story of the possession was an imposture fabricated
expressly for this purpose, or whether advantage was taken of
the existing disorder at the convent to fix an odious imputation
upon Grandier which would be strongly corroborated by his
antecedents, it is impossible to determine. Mignon affirmed
VOI, I. 2 A
35 | TIIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
that the foul spirits, being duly exorcised by himself and other
priests, bore witness to the guilt of the accused; but it must be
observed, as a suspicious circumstance, that these exorcists de-
clined to perform that ceremony in the presence of the local
magistrates. The ecclesiastical authorities were divided in their
view of the case. The Bishop of Poitiers, in whose diocese Loudun
is situated, was unfavourable to Grandier; * the Archbishop of
Bordeaux, metropolitan of the province, was disposed to befriend
him; he sent his own physician to visit the convent, and it
appeared from his report that no trace of witchcraft was then
visible, and that the demeanour of the sisters was calm and
rational. Upon this the Archbishop laid down certain directions,
well calculated to elicit the truth, which were to be strictly
attended to if the symptoms should reappear. But the preter-
natural manifestations now ceased for some time, and the plot
against Grandier seemed likely to collapse.
Fresh resources, however, were at hand. It so happened that
Laubardemont, a councillor of state, well known to be among
the most relentless instruments of Richelieu's tyranny, came to
Loudun on public business connected with his office. To him
the confederates applied;f and by way of prejudicing his mind
against Grandier, they insinuated that he was the author of a
vulgar lampoon called ‘La Cordonnière de Loudun, which was
full of gross Scurrilities against the person, family, and public
conduct of the Cardinal-minister. This was one of the crimes
which Richelieu never pardoned; and most writers are of opinion
that the thirst of vengeance on the supposed satirist was his
chief motive in Sanctioning the detestable cruelties which
followed. Orders were sent to Laubardemont to institute pro-
ceedings against Grandier, and that in a form which showed
that his condemnation was predetermined. The unhappy
man was arrested, and imprisoned for four months at Angers,
until the preparations for his trial were completed. On being
taken back to Loudun, he was confronted for the first time with
the nuns who were said to have suffered from his sorceries.
The signs of possession instantly commenced afresh; the fiends
* A few years previously the bishop obtained an acquittal.
had been compelled to proceed against | f The superior of the Ursulinos was
him on a charge of immorality; but, on a micce of Laubardemonſ,
appeal to the Metropolitan, he had -
O
A.D. 1634. URBAIN GRANDIER. 355
were furious against the helpless prisoner; they loaded him with
execrations, and threatened to tear him in pieces. At length
he was brought to trial before a special commission named by
Richelieu, consisting of twelve judges chosen from a distance,
with Laubardemont as president. The evidence against him was
that of the demons themselves (Astaroth, Asmodeus, Sabulon,
&c.), procured by the mock exorcisms of those who were known
to be bent on his destruction. In vain he urged that the devil
is the father of lies, and ought not to be credited even when he
speaks the truth. In vain it was pointed out that the spirits
contradicted themselves, that they were proved to be false by
the application of the general tests enjoined by the Church, and
that the means prescribed by the metropolitan for guarding
against deception in this particular case had been totally ignored.
It was a mere parody of justice. Laubardemont even went so
far as to announce publicly that any one presuming to gainsay
the depositions against the prisoner would be punished with fine
and corporal penalties. -
The court pronounced judgment on the 17th of August, 1634,
convicting Grandier of the crimes of magic and sorcery, in
maliciously causing the possession of the Ursulines and of other
persons named in the indictment. He was tortured with un-
speakable barbarity, but nothing could be wrung from him
beyond cries for mercy and fervent protestations of innocence,
The capital sentence was executed the next day, and Grandier
was burnt to death on a scaffold in the public Square of Loudun,
imploring pardon of God, and repeating the litanies of the
Virgin, with his last breath.*
The marvellous tale of the possessions of Loudun, though the
instinct of our own age prompts us to reject it without hesita-
tion, found credence at the time, and that not only with the
superstitious multitude, but with minds of superior enlighten-
ment and culture. Richelieu, according to the account given
in his “Memoirs, f was fully convinced of its truth. The Jesuit
* See the original documents relating 3. Jugement rendu par les commis-
to this affair in the Archives Curieuses saires deputés contre Urbain Grandier.
de l'Hist. de France, tom. v. 2 Serie. 4. Relation véritable de la mort d'Ur-
These consist of 1. Veritable relation bain Grandier. 5. Lettre du Sieur
des justes procedures, &c. (by F. Tran- ; Grandier au Roi.
quille, one of the exorcists). 2. Fac- f See Mémoires de Richelieu, Liv.
tum pour Maistre Urbain Grandier. xxv. (Petitot, 2° Serie.)
* } •
Z. A 2
356 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
Eather Surin, a man of unquestionable piety, though inclined to
fanaticism, acted as one of the exorcists. Walter Montague,
afterwards Abbot of Pontoise, declared to Pope Urban VIII.
that he had witnessed on this occasion proofs of diabolical
agency which made disbelief impossible.”
It may safely be pronounced, however, that the possession, if
real, was not the work of Urbain Grandier. He was no magician,
though unhappily guilty of many other delinquencies. His own
undisciplined passions, rather than any more direct commerce
with the powers of darkness, would seem to have brought him,
by a chain of retributive consequences, to this wretched end.
Of the part acted by Richelieu in this tragedy there is no
sufficient explanation. If he believed the case to be one of
genuine possession, why did he send it before an extraordinary
commission with a man of Laubardemont's sinister reputation
at the head of it, instead of leaving it in the hands of the Church
authorities, to whose cognisance it manifestly belonged in the
first instance? On the other hand, if he was actuated merely
by resentment against Grandier as the presumed writer of a
miserable anonymous libel, why did he not prosecute him for
that offence before the Ordinary tribunals, as had been his custom
in other like instances? It has been suggested that the Cardi-
nal's object was to give another terrible lesson to the Calvinists,
who had ridiculed the possessions as a delusion and the exorcisms
as a farce. One thing is clear at all events, that he was resolved
upon the condemnation of Grandier; but various questions of
detail as to the motives which governed him must remain neces-
sarily without an answer.f
The unfortunate Ursulines were not immediately delivered
from their Satanic visitations upon the death of Grandier.
Father Surin was commissioned by his Order to continue the
exorcisms, and some of the spirits showed a determination to
maintain their posts, in spite of all his exertions, to the last
extremity. The prioress, Jeanne des Anges, was grievously tor-
mented for more than two years afterwards; and the last of the
* H. M. Boudon, Jºie du P. Seurin, démonomanie de Loudun a été une des
|Paris, 1689. fourberies du Cardinal (et plát à Dieu
f The sceptical Gui Patin dismisses qu’il n'eſt fait que celle-la () pour
the case without hesitation as a mali- faire brûler un pauvre prêtre quivalait
cious strittagem of Richelieu's for the mieux que lui.” Lettre clºxi., tom, i.
destruction of a personal enemy. “La p. 302. 2
A.D. 1634, DUKE OF ORLEANS MARRIAGE IMPUGNED. 357
infernal legion could not be persuaded to decamp till the 15th
of October, 1637.* -
The imperiousness of Richelieu’s temper, combined with the
splendour of his genius, gradually overawed the authorities of
the realm, ecclesiastical and civil, into a servile compliance with
his behests. One of the most marked instances of this was the
dissolution of the marriage of Gaston Duke of Orleans, the pre-
sumptive heir to the throne, with his second wife, Marguerite
of Lorraine. They had been married at first in private, but the
union was afterwards publicly acknowledged at Brussels before
the Archbishop of Malines. Louis, however, refused to recognise
it, inasmuch as it had been contracted not only without his
consent, but in direct opposition to his commands; and the Car-
dinal determined that it should be formally annulled. He is
said to have had views of family interest in this matter, and to
have projected an alliance between the Duke and his niece
Madame de Combalet; but the insinuation seems to be un-
founded. -
There were two grounds upon which the validity of the
marriage was impugned ; the first was the civil offence desig-
nated by the French law “rapt,” the Duke of Lorraine being
charged with having unlawfully inveigled Gaston into a con-
nexion which was contrary to the will of his sovereign, and,
therefore, to the fundamental laws of the realm ; the second
was a spiritual offence, the “clandestinité" of the marriage,
which, as it affected the conditions essential to one of the
Sacraments, belonged to the jurisdiction of the Church.
The French ambassador at Rome was instructed to inform
the Pope that his Majesty designed to prosecute the civil suit
before his courts of Parliament at Paris, according to the
immemorial practice in such cases; but that if his Holiness
should think fit to name a commission of French bishops to
arbitrate on the religious question, he would stay the action of
the secular arm until their decision (which would be virtually
that of the Holy See) should be pronounced. Urban declined
to take this course; intimating that if he took cognisance of the
affair at all, it must be in person, and not through com-
missioners. Cardinal Barberini hinted his doubts as to the
* D'Avrigny, Mém, Clºromolog, tom. ii. p. 45,
35S THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
historical authenticity of this “fundamental law of the realm,”
which was so confidently appealed to ; and compared it to the
Salic law, the existence of which had never yet been demon-
strated from any ancient record.” The ambassador reported
to his Government that there was little prospect of assistance
from Rome; and Richelieu forth with carried the cause before
the Parliament. The Duke of Lorraine was cited to the bar
of that tribunal as a vassal of the French Crown, together
with the Princess Marguerite his sister, and the Cardinal of
Lorraine, in whose diocese of Toul the marriage had been
celebrated. The obedient magistrates, after fulfilling all the
requisite formalities, gave sentence on the 5th of September,
1634, declaring the marriage “invalidly contracted,” and con-
demning the Duke, as guilty of high treason, to the forfeiture of
all his fiefs. The civil contract was thus annulled; but the
ecclesiastical difficulty still remained. A reconciliation was
now effected between Louis and the turbulent Gaston, by which
they agreed, among other articles, that the question of the
marriage “should be submitted to the ordinary authority to
which his Majesty's subjects were amenable in such cases,
according to the laws of the realm ; ” the Duke engaging, if
the judgment should be adverse to him, not to remarry without
the king's consent, while the latter promised that no constraint
should be placed upon his Highness's inclinations with regard
to any future alliance. In pursuance of this treaty another
attempt was made to induce the Pope to arbitrate in the affair;
but Urban was firm. He admitted that the civil contract
might be dissolved by civil authority; but insisted that the
religious union, resulting from a Sacrament of the Church
canonically administered, must remain, nevertheless, intact.
Under these circumstances Richelieu applied to the national
clergy. A royal message was sent to them at their ordinary
meeting in May, 1635, desiring their opinion on the question
“whether the marriages of princes of the blood, particularly of
those who stand nearest in succession to the Crown, can be
lawful if made in opposition to the will of the reigning sove-
reign.” This inquiry was referred by the Assembly to a com-
* Levassor, tom. viii. chap. xxxvi.
t Mémoires de Richelieu, Liv. xxv. (Petitot, tom. xxviii.). Mem. du Comte
de Montrésor (Petitot, 2 Série, tom, liv.).
A.D. 1635. GALLICAN CLERGY ON ROYAL MARRIAGES. 359
mittee of five members—the Bishops of Montpellier (Fenouillet),
Chartres, Séez, St. Malo, and Nismes—all well known for their
obsequious devotion to the Cardinal. In order to save appear-
ances, these prelates consulted several leading doctors of the
Sorbonne–Lescot, Habert, Duval, Cornet, Isambert, and others
—and also the heads of the religious congregations, including
the Jesuits and the Oratorians; * and the result of their
deliberations was to affirm, almost without a dissentient voice,
the invalidity of royal marriages under the circumstances
specified. Their report to that effect was presented on the
6th of July. It stated that the civil contract constitutes
the “matter” of the Sacrament of Matrimony; that this is
subject to alteration, and cannot be legitimate unless it be in
conformity with the regulations of the civil authority. In
default of such conformity there can be no valid Sacrament.
The power of constituting “empêchemens dirimans” was exer-
cised by heathen emperors, and the same right belongs, conse-
quently, to Christian princes—a right of which the Pope and
the bishops cannot deprive them. The custom of France
forbids the princes of the blood to marry without permission
from the king; and marriages made without his consent are
Žp80 facto illegitimate, invalid, and null. And the said custom
is declared to be “reasonable, ancient, confirmed by legal
prescription, and authorized by the Church.”f The report was
adopted, and a decree in the same terms was drawn up and
signed officially by the Assembly. $
There was, however, one exception to the unanimity of the
French clergy on this occasion, which is of sufficient importance
to deserve mention; it was the Abbé de St. Cyran. That
fearless divine is said to have declared that “he would rather
have killed ten men º’ than be a party to the late resolution of
his brethren, which, in his opinion, had “ruined one of the
Sacraments of the Church.”f This boldness of speech gave
sore umbrage to Richelieu, and was one of the offences after-
wards visited without mercy on St. Cyran.
* Condren, Superior-General of the # Mémoires du Clergé de France,
Oratory, was confessor to the Duke of tom. v. p. 693.
Orleans;–a circumstance which did t D'Avrigny, Mém, Chron., tom, ii.
not deter him from pronouncing in p. 54.
opposition to the marriage.
360 .** THE GALLICAN CHUJRCII. CHAP. X.
The Queen Mother, Mary de Medici, who at this time was
living in exile at Antwerp, no sooner heard of these proceedings
at Paris than she wrote to the Pope, beseeching him not to
permit the marriage of her son to be dissolved, and inveighing
bitterly against the malice of the Cardinal and the measures of
the Gallican clergy. Urban ordered his nuncios to remon-
strate; and Louis, in reply, begged his Holiness not to give
heed to these groundless complaints, which proceeded, he said,
solely from the spite of his enemies the Spaniards, whose
interest it was to trouble the repose of his kingdom. He would
shortly despatch to Rome one of the bishops who had been
concerned in framing the decree of the Assembly, to explain
the reasons of State which had made it necessary to procure the
recent declaration from the ecclesiastical body. The envoy
chosen for this purpose was Pierre Fenouillet, Bishop of Mont-
pellier, one of the most eminent and zealous of the French
prelates. His instructions are detailed at length by Richelieu
in his Memoirs. He was ordered to avoid leading the Pope to
suppose that the king felt himself in need of his sanction for
the step he had taken, as if there were any doubt of its validity
without such sanction; but to represent that his Majesty was
prompted by reverence and affection for the Holy Father to
lay before him the reasons which made it impossible that the
pretended marriage of the Duke of Orleans could be recognized
or allowed to exist; such an alliance being to the last degree
prejudicial to the repose of the kingdom, and, consequently, to the
welfare of Christendom. He was to remind the Pope of the mani-
fold misfortunes which had been brought upon France in former
days through the ambition of the princes of Lorraine; and to
state that the present head of that family had surpassed all others
in showing disrespect and animosity against the person of his
Majesty, from whom he had received benefits and favours without
number. He was to express the king's confident hope that his
Holiness would not oppose the ancient “custom of France”
with respect to the marriages of princes of the blood—a custom
which had been approved by his predecessors, and confirmed
by ecclesiastical canons. He was to point out that neither the
Parliament nor the clergy had done anything that savoured of
encroachment, or was contrary to lawful precedent; instancing
the case of the Empress Judith, wife of Charles the Bald, who
A.D. 1636. MISSION OF FENOUILLET TO ROME. 361
had been excommunicated by a Gallican Council, which sen-
tence had not been objected to by the then Pope, Nicolas I.
Finally, he was to assure the Pope that the king would gladly .
have submitted the whole affair to the personal arbitration of
his Holiness, but for certain political complications, especially
the intrigues of the Spaniards, who were implacable in their
jealousy and hatred of France; and that such reference to the
Holy See was, after all, Scarcely necessary, since the relative
powers and prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the French
Government were distinctly defined by the Concordat.”
Tenouillet was graciously received at Rome, and fulfilled his
errand with so much tact that Urban expressed himself satisfied,
in a political sense, with the course pursued by the French
Crown. But he was not to be driven from his view of the
indissoluble nature of the marriage considered in its sacra-
mental aspect. The Duke of Orleans, in consequence, con-
tinued to insist on the validity of his marriage, though he
declared himself perfectly willing to defer to the judgment of
the Pope, or to that of a French Council presided over by
commissioners named by his Holiness. It was not long, how-
ever, before the Cardinal found himself compelled, by various
considerations of State interest, to give way upon this question,
which had been debated with so much warmth and obstimacy.
In January, 1637, an arrangement was entered into with
Gaston by which he was permitted to retain his wife, with the
king's publicly-expressed approbation, on condition that he
would renounce for ever all sympathy with the views and
policy of the Duke of Lorraine. The prince accepted the
stipulation, was reconciled to his brother, and recovered his
honours and domains. Such a conclusion of the affair was by
no means creditable to the sincerity of Richelieu ; while it
left the Assembly of the clergy in a position of awkwardness
little to be envied.
The views of the great Cardinal with regard to the exclusive
privileges and immunities of the clerical order differed widely
from those which prevailed in mediaeval times. His sym-
pathies were with Philip the Fair rather than with Boniface
VIII. He refused to admit the argument that, since the Church
* Mémoires de Richelieu, LiV. XXVi.
362 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
is essentially independent of the State, therefore the clergy are
exempt from the burden of ordinary taxation for the lawful
requirements of the Government. Vast sums were demanded
and obtained for various public purposes from the ecclesiastical
assemblies of 1625, 1628, and 1635, though not without mur-
muring and remonstrance; and a few years later (Oct. 6, 1640),
at a moment when the misunderstanding between Richelieu and
the Court of Rome was at its height, a royal edict suddenly
exacted from the beneficed clergy a sixth of their entire
revenue for the two years next ensuing. This proceeding was
justified on the part of the Crown by reasons which were pal-
pably unfair, though wearing a certain air of plausibility.
Richelieu had collected, with the help of the Bishop of Chartres,
one of his most trusted confidants, a mass of documents from
ancient archives, which went to show that Church property,
being held in mortmain, belonged, in fact, to the king as lord
paramount; that it might be resumed at his pleasure, and re-
united to the domaine royal ; and that no religious corporation
could lawfully acquire any such possessions except by letters
patent, which were granted on the payment of an ad valorem
duty, called the “droit d'amortissement.” It was asserted that
the clergy had systematically neglected to fulfil this latter con-
dition; and they were now summoned to discharge at once all
the arrears which had thus accumulated since the year 1520,
when a similar claim had been enforced by Francis I. The
debt was assessed at one-sixth of the whole ecclesiastical income
for two years; and, accordingly, the Government took measures,
without further ceremony, for levying this outrageous impost.
No sooner did the royal officers begin to lay violent hands upon
the Church’s patrimony, than an agitation arose which it is
more easy to conceive than to describe. The voice of remon-
strance resounded on all sides; torrents of denunciation were
poured forth against the “tyrant,” the “apostate,” who had
sacrilegiously trampled on the privileges of the Church, and
imposed on her a yoke of servitude hitherto without example.
Special prayers were ordered in the churches; strongly worded
petitions were forwarded to the Throne; appeals were made to
the Pope for his intervention. The grievance resented by the
clergy was not so much the amount of the sum demanded, as
the attempt to extort it from them without their own consent
A.D. 1640. |UNJUST TAXATION OF TEIE CLERGY. 363
in their representative Assembly. They declared themselves
ready to contribute their just share to the national exchequer;
but this must be done by the act of their own body, and not by
the compulsory fiat of the State. They contended that, in
principle, all applications of Church funds to secular purposes
were spontaneous, and emanated from the Church herself; and
nothing should induce them to yield, unless the form of syno-
dical deliberation and decision were at least outwardly respected
in the present instance. The minister, who was now anxiously
engaged in his great struggle with the house of Austria, felt
that it was time to offer some concession ; he signified, there-
fore, that the king would allow the matter to be discussed in a
General Assembly of the clergy, which was ordered to meet for
that purpose in the spring of 1641. The sittings commenced
on the 15th of February at Paris, but they were afterwards
transferred to Mantes, where Richelieu judged that his projects
were more likely to be received with favour, since it belonged
to the diocese of Chartres, presided over by his friend Léonor
d’Etampes.
Stormy scenes characterized the sessions. The majority, led
by Charles de Montchal, Archbishop of Toulouse, was violently
opposed to the Government; the minority, devoted to Richelieu,
were not less resolute, and expressed their sentiments in extra-
vagant language. The Bishop of Autun affirmed, to the horror
of his brethren, that all ecclesiastical property belonged to the
Crown, and that his Majesty, after making a moderate provision
for the support of the clergy, was fully entitled, if he thought
proper, to appropriate the surplus. The total subsidy required
from the Assembly (including the arrears of “amortissement,”
and a special grant in addition towards the expenses of the war)
was six millions of livres. This was a vast reduction from the
original claim of a sixth of two years' income; yet the clergy
refused to vote it, and it became necessary to resort to extreme
measures to enforce their submission. The two presidents, the
Archbishops of Sens and Toulouse, together with four bishops,
were expelled from their seats by order of the king, and com-
manded to retire to their dioceses without passing through
Paris. The chamber, thus purged of its refractory members,
consented, on the 27th of May, to pay into the treasury five
millions; and with this the Government declared itself satisfied.
364 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
The Pope embraced the opportunity of intimating his desire
for the accommodation of his differences with France. The
diplomatic intercourse between the two Courts, which had been
suspended since the affair of Marshal d'Estrées, was replaced
on the accustomed footing; and a cardinal's hat, a boon long
and importunately demanded on behalf of Mazarin, was
despatched as a pledge of reconciliation.”
The causes which had rendered the Abbé de St. Cyran an
object of suspicion to Richelieu were manifold and of long stand-
ing. The Cardinal, while Bishop of Luçon, had made acquaint-
ance with him as an ecclesiastic of the neighbouring diocese
of Poitiers, and, with the unerring intuition of genius, had at
once recognized his extraordinary powers and gifts. On becom-
ing prime minister, he showed his appreciation of St. Cyran's
merits by offering him various appointments in the Church.
He named him, in 1625, principal chaplain to Queen Henrietta
Maria on the occasion of her marriage. The abbé having de-
clined the post, the episcopal see of Clermont was next tendered
for his acceptance, and declined in like manner; and afterwards
other preferments with the same result. Richelieu was piqued
by this persistent opposition to his advances. The spirit of
independence was precisely that which he could least under-
stand or tolerate; and he began to attribute St. Cyran's conduct
to sinister motives. But he mistook his views and character.
That remarkable man was ambitious, but his ambition was not
that of common minds; he cared nothing for high station, or
wealth, or political influence; but he had an intense thirst for that
species of dominion which consists in the authoritative guidance
of souls. He was formed to be the Oracle of the devout, the super-
stitious, the enthusiastic, mind; to enthral tender consciences;
to organize and govern a religious party. Such aspirations, as
they were gradually manifested, awakened the jealous misgivings
of the minister; who felt him to be all the more dangerous in pro-
portion as his sphere of action was mysterious and intangible.
St. Cyran appeared early as an author, and with considerable
success. His first theological effort was a reply to the Jesuit
* Collection des Procès-verbania, des siècle. Caillet, L'Administration en
Assemblées du Clerge, tom. ii. Mémoires | France sous le Card. de Richelieu, tom.
de Montchal, Archévéqué de Toulouse, i. p. 137 et seqq.
Ellies-Dupin, Hist, Eccles, du XVII. f He published, in 1600, a curious
A.D.1625. THE JESUITS AND THE BISHOP OF CHALCEDON, 365
Garasse; * and all his subsequent works were dictated more or
less by the violent antipathy which he cherished against the
Society. A volume which he published under the assumed
name of “Petrus Aurelius” is esteemed his masterpiece; and
of this, as connected with a controversy which excited special
interest among the Gallican clergy of the day, it may be
desirable to give the reader some account.
In 1625, Urban VIII., taking advantage of the opportunity
offered by the marriage of a Catholic princess with the heir
apparent of the British Crown, had nominated Richard Smith
his Vicar-Apostolic in England; who was thereupon consecrated
Bishop of Chalcedon in partibus, and invested with the ordi-
nary diocesan jurisdiction. This prelate, soon after his arrival
in England, incurred much odium by enforcing, perhaps more
strictly than the circumstances required, the rule which re-
strained members of religious Orders, and priests having no
cure of souls, from hearing confessions without licence from the
ordinary. The Jesuits resented the prohibition, and insisted
that, by special privilege granted by the Pope, they were en-
titled to exercise their ministry wherever they pleased, inde-
pendently of the diocesan authority. The dispute grew serious,
and such was the animosity stirred up against the obnoxious
Bishop of Chalcedon, that at length the Government of Charles I.
proscribed him as an outlaw, and offered a reward of 100. for
his apprehension. Upon this he made his escape to France,
where he met with a kind reception from Cardinal Richelieu.f
A sharp theological skirmish followed. Dr. Kellison, Rector
of the English College at Douai, came forward in defence of
Bishop Smith, and of the episcopate in general. He was
answered by Edward Knott, Vice-Provincial of the Jesuits in
England, and by John Floyd, another Jesuit, who put forth
“An Apology for the conduct of the Holy See in the govern-
treatise entitled, Question royale, et Sa
decision, written in reply to a half-
jocular inquiry of Henry IV. as to the
circumstances in which a subject ought
to sacrifice his own life to preserve that
of his sovereign. St. Cyran has conse-
quently been represented by Jesuits
and others as an apologist for Suicide.
* La Somme des fautes et fauSSétés
contemues en la Somme Théologique du
Père Garasse,
This Work of F. Garasse
was condemned by the Sorbonne in
September, 1627.
f This latter fact was denied by the
Jesuits; but it is clearly established by
the terms of the Pope's brief, which is
given at length in the Mémoires did
Clergé de France (tom. i. p. 631), and
quoted by Ellies-Dupin in his Eccles.
Hist, of the XVIIth Century.
i Collier's ‘Ecclesiastical History,’
vol. viii. p. 40. .*
366 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
ment of the English Catholics.' The two last-mentioned publi-
cations were forthwith translated into French and Latin, and
submitted to the Archbishop of Paris and the Theological
Faculty. The Archbishop on the 30th of January, 1631, and
the Sorbonne on the 6th of February, condemned certain pro-
positions extracted from the works in question as “rash, scan-
dalous, and heretical.” A circular letter to the archbishops
and bishops of France was drawn up and signed by thirty-
two prelates then assembled at Paris; in which these errors
were denounced as tending to disparage and destroy the autho-
rity which Christ gave to the rulers of His Church—sub-
versive of the ecclesiastical hierarchy—and derogatory to one
of the Sacraments of the Church, namely Confirmation. Some of
the statements were even declared to be contrary to the Word
of God, the authority of CEcumenical Councils, and the supreme
jurisdiction of the successor of St. Peter.” The following may
be cited as illustrating their general spirit. “It is utterly false,
and of dangerous consequence, to say that there must of neces-
sity be a bishop in each particular Church.” “Bishops are
necessary for the sole purpose of ordaining priests and deacons.”
“Members of the regular Orders belong to the hierarchy abso-
lutely, and not in this or that sense.” “The superiors of
religious houses, since they are properly the ordinaries and
pastors of their own communities, are in that respect more
truly members of the hierarchy than a bishop who is only
deputed to act as such in one particular place.” “Catholics
who have received the chrism in baptism are perfect Christians
in the Sense of the Fathers, even though they have not been
confirmed by the bishop.” Such doctrines sound strangely
indeed from the lips of Catholic divines; nor is it any sufficient
extenuation of them to plead that they were only intended to
apply to “times of persecution.” The Jesuits, notwithstanding
the censure of the bishops and the Parisian Faculty, kept up the
controversy with unabated vigour. They attacked the circular
letter, which they reviled as a tissue of exaggerations, containing
no one proposition that was strictly true, and many that would
be totally false even without the aid of hyperbolical language.
“Did the French bishops,” they demanded, “suppose them-
* }Itſmoſres du Clergé de France, tom. i. p. 582.
Fºr
A.D. 1633. ST, CYRAN– PETRUS AURELIUS.’ 367
selves to be more vigilant and more clear-sighted than the Pope
and all his Cardinals 2 The publications upon which they had
just passed sentence were perfectly well known at Rome; yet no
one there had thought it necessary to open his mouth against
them.” The famous François Hallier undertook the defence of
the Sorbonne on this occasion in his ‘Vindicia censurae Sacrae
Facultatis,’ and subsequently in his work ‘De hierarchià. At
length, in 1633, ‘Petrus Aurelius’ made its appearance;—a
formidable folio volume, written in a laboured and heavy style,
but evincing great intellectual power, a complete mastery of the
subject in dispute, and an extraordinary acquaintance with
the Fathers and the ancient discipline of the Church. It was
generally attributed at the time to the Abbé de St. Cyran, and
has ever since been reckoned among his works. St. Cyran never
acknowledged the authorship: on the contrary, he usually spoke
of it as the composition of another; but there is no doubt that,
if not actually penned by his own hand, it was written under his
immediate dictation. His nephew Martin de Barcos, who after-
wards succeeded him in the abbey of St. Cyran, probably acted
as amanuensis, and prepared the work for the press.
‘Petrus Aurelius’ was greeted by a general chorus of applause
from the Gallican bishops, the clergy assembled in convocation,
and the University of Paris. The Assembly sent a deputation
to inquire of Filesac, dean of the Theological Faculty, whether
he could tell them the real name of the author; in order that
they might express to him their high sense of his merits, and
offer him some substantial token of their gratitude. Filesac
replied, “on the faith of a priest,” that he did not know who
Petrus Aurelius was ; but that since he had thought fit to
forego, by remaining concealed, the fame and honour which
were clearly his due, he was not likely, in his (Filesac's) opinion,
to quit his incognito for the sake of any pecuniary recompense.
He probably desired no greater reward for his labours than to be
assured of the favourable verdict of so celebrated an Assembly,
and so many distinguished personages.” The Jesuits, upon
whom Petrus Aurelius had bestowed no small amount of
sharp vituperation, complained to the King of this treatment,
and demanded that the work should be suppressed; but in vain.
* l’rocès-verbania, des Assemblées du Cl. 1'ſſé de France, tom. ii. p. 835.
368 * = * , THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
They continued their libellous attacks upon the prelates and the
Assembly of clergy, and were at length called to account for
their conduct; upon which they disavowed, without hesitation,
the writings of their English brethren, as well as the more
recent publications in France; declaring, in a document
addressed to the bishops on the 23rd of March, 1633, that
the works in question were not composed by members of their
Society, and lamenting that subjects so fertile in dissension
should ever have been mooted.* The disingenuousness of this
proceeding requires no comment. It served its turn, however;
for the bishops, though not altogether satisfied, accepted the
disclaimer, and the Jesuits escaped further animadversion. The
Court of Rome interposed at the same moment to throw its
protecting shield round these unscrupulous champions of
its Supremacy. A decree of the Congregation of the Index
prohibited the continuance of the controversy, though without
pronouncing any decision upon the merits of the question.
All publications relating to it were summarily suppressed; and
the faithful were admonished not to write or dispute thence-
forward upon these topics, under pain of excommunication
&pso facto. The Gallican divines exclaimed loudly against this
mandate, arguing that, if it were enforced to the letter, many
unquestionable Catholic verities could no longer be publicly
insisted on ;-for instance, that the privileges granted to
Regulars may be revoked by the Pope; that bishops are
superior to monks; that it is necessary for every Church to
have episcopal government; that the baptized are not perfect
Christians unless they be also confirmed. And if such truths
as these might not be taught authoritatively, occasion would
be given to heretics to triumph, and to charge the Church with
tolerating manifest error.
It is curious to observe, in glancing at the subsequent history
of the writings of Petrus Aurelius, that, although welcomed
with such enthusiasm on their first appearance, they did not
permanently retain a high place in the estimation of the clergy.
In 1635, as we have said, the work called forth warm encomiums
from the Assembly, and was pronounced signally serviceable to
the Church. In 1641, although the reputed author was then a
* Mémoires du Clergé, tom. i. p. 579.
grº
A.D. 1641. * PETRUS AURELIUS.’ 369
prisoner at Vincennes, a new edition was printed by order and
at the expense of the clergy; copies of which were presented to
all the archbishops and bishops, and to all the deputies of the
Assembly. This was resented by the Government ; Vitrè,
printer to the Assembly, was apprehended, and all the remain-
ing copies were seized and confiscated. . When the time came
for the next meeting of the clergy, Louis XIII. and his great
minister were in the grave; and a new order of things had
succeeded, under Anne of Austria as Regent, and Mazarin as
director of her councils. The clergy now remonstrated with
the Government for the indignity done to their order by the
violent suppression of a work which they had stamped with
special approval; and demanded that the copies abstracted by
the police should be restored. This could not be complied
with, since it appeared that the books had been thrown into a
damp garret, where they had mouldered and perished; but the
Chancellor Seguier offered to sanction the issue of a third
edition of ‘Petrus Aurelius.’ This was accordingly published in
1646, and was prefaced by a magnificent éloge of the author,
in the graceful Latinity of Godeau, Bishop of Wence. “The
Gallican Church exulted in this memorable vindication of the
authority of the Fathers, and congratulated the writer on having
so triumphantly exposed and confuted the errors, falsehoods, and
calumnies of his adversaries; thus answering fools, as Holy
Scripture enjoins, according to their folly. The clergy knew,
not which of his varied gifts was most to be admired;—his vast
ecclesiastical learning, his majesty of style, his sagacity in
detecting the artifices of opponents, his weight of argument in
attacking error, his candour in the assertion of truth, his felicity
in expounding the abstruse mysteries of faith, his ardent love
toward the spouse of Christ, his sincere and unaffected humility.”
If, however, we look ten years forward, we shall find that
these sentiments of his brethren towards Petrus Aurelius had
during that interval undergone a serious alteration. In 1656,
France was convulsed from One end to the other by the agita-
tion of the Jansenist controversy ; and Rome had condemned,
by two successive bulls, that theological system of which St.
Cyran was the foremost upholder. The clerical Assembly of
that year disclaimed and revoked the acclamations which had
been lavished upon Petrus Aurelius on former Occasions; Sup-
VOI, I. 2 B
370 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. }HAP. X.
pressed the “elogium ” of the accomplished Bishop of Vence;
and even required the editors of the “Gallia Christiana' to
expunge a laudatory notice of St. Cyran which they had inserted
in that great national work. The cause of this self-contradic-
tion must be sought chiefly in the political and religious com-
plications of the time. In 1656, the name of St. Cyran had
become notorious as that of one whose unhappy speculations
had stirred up internecine strife in the very bosom of the
Church,--a strife of which none could foresee the end, and which
threatened the Gallican Communion with all the miseries of
open schism. Under these circumstances the clergy did not
hesitate to abandon Petrus Aurelius, at the expense of their
own consistency, in order to avoid all complicity with one who,
however learned, however meritorious in days gone by, was
now to be looked upon in the light of a dangerous innovator
and propagator of heresy. Moreover, it had probably been
discovered, on closer inspection, that St. Cyran's views as to
the hierarchy were of a somewhat democratic cast; that while
he exalted the bishops in their relationship to the Pope, he at
the same time exaggerated the powers and prerogatives of the
priesthood in reference to their diocesans; fostering thereby
an insubordinate spirit and contempt of discipline.
It will be observed that in his great work on the Episcopate
St. Cyran espoused the Gallican side, which accorded in the
main with the sentiments of Richelieu. Nevertheless, the
imputations under which he laboured upon other matters were
so serious as to create an insurmountable prejudice against
him in the mind of the minister. Besides declaring himself
directly in opposition to Richelieu on the question of the mar-
riage of the Duke of Orleans, he had publicly contradicted him
on a point of theology relating to the discipline of the con-
fessional, upon which he was especially sensitive. The Cardinal,
in a Catechism which he drew up for the use of his diocese of
Luçon, had stated (according to the ordinary teaching of Roman
divines) that “attrition,” “ an inſerior degree of mental sorrow,
* Sir James Stephen, with amusing towards the Deity.” See Essays in
indifference to the niceties of Catholic Ecclesiastical Biography, No. vi., “The
terminology, represents Richelieu as | Port Royalists.” Contrition, in theo-
insisting on the Sufficiency of “con- logical parlance, includes the love of
trition, uncombined in the heart of the God; it is attrition that is “uncom-
penitent with any emotions of love bined" with it. The language of the
A.D. 1638. CONTRITION AND ATTRITION. 371
arising chiefly from the fear of punishment, is sufficient for
acceptable penitence and for Sacramental absolution. St. Cyran
combated this, and asserted the necessity of “contrition,”—true
and deep repentance, accompanied by the love of God—in order
to the forgiveness of sin. And since it is universally acknow-
ledged that by such contrition the sinner becomes justified in
God’s sight, the inference was drawn, though unfairly, that he
did not believe in the efficiency and necessity of the Sacrament
of Penance. Thus St. Cyran gained the invidious character of
a man bent on overturning the established doctrine of the
Church; while his position as spiritual director at Port Royal
gave him opportunities of continually widening and deepening
the sphere of his influence. But the proximate cause which
determined Richelieu to proceed actively against him seems to
have been political rather than religious. A treatise had ap-
peared in 1633 entitled ‘Mars Gallicus, sive de justitiã armorum
et foederum regis Galliae. It was by Jansenius, the bosom
friend of St. Cyran; and abounded with incisive criticism on
the administration of Richelieu, denouncing with special bitter-
ness the unnatural confederacy of Catholic France with the
heretical states of Germany. The work found favour in the eyes
of Philip IV. of Spain, who, in testimony of the author's
services, promoted him soon afterwards to the bishopric of
Ypres. In 1638 a French translation of the ‘Mars Gallicus’
was published by Hersent, the same who has been already
noticed as author of the “Optatus Gallus.’ The confidential
relations subsisting between St. Cyran and the Flemish prelate
being well known, his enemies seized the opportunity thus
offered of ruining him with the Cardinal by identifying him
with an offensive production in which he had no real share
whatever. They were fully successful. On the 14th of May,
1638, St. Cyran was arrested at his lodging in Paris, and im-
prisoned in the donjon of Vincennes. His friends besieged the
Palais-Cardinal with intercessions in his favour; the Secretary
of State Chavigny, the Bishops of Beauvais and Pamiers, the
Tuchess of Aiguillon (Richelieu's niece), and even the Saintly
Vincent de Paul, earnestly pleaded for his liberation ; but the
extent ambiguous, and was doubtless de-
signed to leave, the question undecided.
Council of Trent on the subject of
attrition (Sess. XIV. cap. 4) is to some
2 B 2
372 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
Minister was inexorable. “I tell you,” said he, “this man is
more dangerous than six armies. If Luther and Calvin had
been placed in durance in good time, so as to stop their public
teaching, all Germany and all France would have been Catholic
at this moment.” Father Seguenot, an Oratorian, was sent at
the same time to the Bastille. He had translated St. Augustine's
treatise ‘De Virginitate, with notes; in which he depreciated
the sanctity of the monastic life, attacked the system of reli-
gious vows, and broached extreme views on the vexed question
of “attrition and contrition.” His language on these points is
said to have been transcribed verbatim from the writings of St.
Cyran.*
Every exertion was now made to obtain evidence to convict
St. Cyran of heresy, and thus to destroy for ever his character
as a religious teacher. Laubardemont, the Councillor of State
before mentioned as deep in the confidence of Richelieu, was
commissioned to examine witnesses for this purpose; he com-
menced his task at once at Port Royal, and received depositions
from various persons of both sexes, all apparently of average credit,
while some of them were on terms of friendship with the prisoner,
Tardif, an advocate of the Parliament of Paris, Madlle.
d’Aquaviva, daughter of the Duc d'Atry, the Abbé de Prières,
the Abbé de Portmorant, Caulet, afterwards the celebrated
Bishop of Pamiers, and Vigier, Superior of the Frères de la
Doctrine Chrétienne, were among those interrogated as to the
orthodoxy of St. Cyran; and to these we must add the Bishop
of Langres, the Archbishop of Sens, and Vincent de Paul, who
sent their testimonies privately to Richelieu. No precise
account can be given of the results of the investigation, inas-
much as the records of the proceedings are obviously coloured
by the strong party spirit of the day. So far as can be ascer-
tained, nothing was proved against St. Cyran to substantiate
the charge of heresy. His weak points were brought to light in
the course of the enquiry; these seem to have been intempe-
rateness of language, self-sufficiency, a sovereign contempt for
the current theology of his own time, and the habit (singular in
a man so deeply learned) of relying too exclusively on St.
Augustine, disregarding in comparison the general stream of
* D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronolog., tom. ii. p. 86.
A.D. 1638–43. ST. CYRAN AT WINCENNES. 373
Church tradition. Vincent de Paul was summoned before M.
de Lescot, under a commission from the Archbishop of Paris,
and closely questioned as to the contents of a letter written to
him by St. Cyran in 1637. He gave his evidence reluctantly,
and with a visible leaning towards the prisoner; so that nothing
was elicited upon which any serious accusation could be founded.*
It appeared that St. Cyran had let fall some indiscreet expres-
sions in disparagement of the Council of Trent, and other un-
complimentary reflexions on the existing state of things in the
Church. The prisoner himself subsequently underwent an ex-
amination by Lescot in his cell; on which occasion, if D'Avrigny
is to be credited, he showed himself no mean proficient in the
arts of prevarication. He excused his conduct in one case by .
remarking that men often maintain in theory principles which
they contradict in practice; and that, although he might desire,
“by a first intention,” the restoration of the ancient discipline,
yet “by a second intention ” he might judge it right to depart
from this standard, and accommodate himself to the prevailing
dispositions of mankind. In another difficulty he pleaded that
he had employed the figure Catachresis, which signifies an abuse
of language; and added that if he had sometimes erred in
this respect, much ought to be pardoned in one of his impetuous
nature, who could not always keep his tongue under control.f
Even if St. Cyran had been guilty of all that was imputed to
him, there was nothing to justify his detention in prison; nor
was any attempt made to found a legal prosecution on the result
of these enquiries. He bore his captivity with exemplary forti-
tude. It lasted nearly five years, and was terminated only by
the death of Richelieu. More than once it was intimated to
the prisoner that he might obtain his liberty on condition of
giving satisfaction on certain points, especially on the much-
contested doctrine of attrition and contrition. But St. Cyran
could not reconcile such compliance with his conscience, and
preferred the loss of liberty to the sacrifice of principle. During
* B. Racine, Hist. Eccles., tom. xiii.
Pt. i. Art. 31.
f D’Avrigny, Mém. Chronolog., tom.
ii. p. 107. It must be observed that no
official account was ever published of
the examination of St. Cyran by M. de
Lescot. D'Avrigny’s version of it is
probably borrowed from that given by
the Jesuit Pinthereau (under the dis-
guised name of De Preville) in his
Progrès du Jansenisme descowvert.
Thus these allegations, being those of
declared enemies, lie open to some sus-
picion. See St. Beuve, Port Royal
tom. i. p. 510, et seqq. Guettee, Hist.
de l'Eglise d2 France, tom. x. p. 210.
374 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. X.
his confinement he wrote his ‘Lettres Chrétiennes et Spirituelles,’
which have been many times reprinted; and he continued to
wield, perhaps all the more powerfully because he was suffering
persecution, that wonderful empire which he possessed over
religiously-disposed minds in all classes of society. It was
at Vincennes that he received the visits of Antoine Arnauld, at
that time a divinity student preparing for his degrees at the
Sorbonne; upon whom his counsels wrought such a profound
impression, that he renounced his prospects of professional
renown, resigned his preferments, and not long afterwards joined
the band of ascetic solitaries who had installed themselves in
the cloisters of Port Royal des Champs. Another convert made
by St. Cyran during his imprisonment was Henri Arnauld de
Luzangi, an officer in the army, son of M. Arnauld d'Andilly,
and nephew of the great Antoine. He held an appointment in
the household of Richelieu, and might reasonably have aspired
to the highest honours; but such considerations were not proof
against the rhetoric of the captive confessor. De Luzançi sub-
mitted to St. Cyran's guidance as to that of a voice from Heaven;
relinquished without a sigh his position in the gay world of
Paris, and would not be satisfied till he had obtained admittance
among the pious hermits of the valley of Chevreuse.
The formation of a society of men capable by their talents,
their learning, their absolute Self-devotion, of counterbalancing
the power of the Jesuits, had been for years uppermost in the
mind of St. Cyran. It was from the Arnauld family, over whom
his ascendency was boundless, that he chose his first instruments
in the execution of this scheme. Antoine Lemaître was a
nephew of the Abbess Angélique and of Antoine Arnauld.
Lemaître, at the age of twenty-eight, had acquired an extraor-
dinary reputation as a barrister, and was rapidly advancing
towards the highest dignities of the profession. St. Cyran set
his heart upon effecting the conversion of this gifted advocate.
He succeeded in dissuading him from an advantageous marriage
which would have attached him by permanent ties to the world.
This triumph gained, no pains were spared to convince him of
the glory and blessedness of a life of devout and ascetic seclusion.
By degrees Lemaître yielded to these impressions; and at length
the solemn ministrations of St. Cyran at the deathbed of Madame
Arnauld d'Andilly, his aunt, touched a chord which vibrated
with irresistible sympathy through his in most soul. A few
A.D. 1638–43. ST. CYRAN'S CONVERTS. - 375
months afterwards he resigned his appointments, abandoned his
profession, and retired to Port Royal, where he became the first
of the famous “Solitaires.” Such an example was not likely,
in that age and country, to remain without imitators. Lemaître
was joined successively by his younger brother Lemaître de
Séricourt; by Antoine Singlin, a priest who had been trained
under the eye of Vincent de Paul; and by Claude Lancelot, of
the Seminary of St. Nicolas de Chardonnet. Others followed
after some interval. Isaac Lemaître de Sacy, one of the most
accomplished Biblical scholars of the day; the great Antoine
Arnauld ; and Robert Arnauld d'Andilly, a considerable landed
proprietor and the head of the family. .
These multiplied testimonies to the force of St. Cyran's genius
were not lost upon the Church at large. He was recognized alike
by friend and foe as the leader of a great religious movement,
which, if it. Once gained sufficient scope for development, must
work important changes, whether for good or evil, in the prevail-
ing system of belief and discipline. While Richelieu lived, such
opportunity was rigorously withheld. The Cardinal was keenly
alive to the dangers of any renewal of the predestinarian con-
troversy, which had already been so prolific of disorder in the
Church ; and that especially when it was certain to be compli-
cated with other aims and interests of a far more practical
nature. So long as he retained the reins of power, all attempt
at agitation in this direction was resolutely suppressed. The
walls of Vincennes guaranteed the harmlessness of St. Cyran ;
and his disciples showed no eagerness to commit themselves
to any energetic course of action in the absence of their master.
But Richelieu’s tenure of authority was drawing to a close.
He expired on the 4th December, 1642; displaying in his
last moments a tranquillity, firmness, and confidence, which in-
spired some of those who witnessed the scene with admiration,
others with affright.” The situation of affairs changed forth-
with. The new ministers, though professing to adopt the
principles of their predecessor, found it expedient to relax in
some measure the Severity of his internal government. Many
personages of distinction, who for years had pined in captivity
* “Nimium me terret magna ista securitas" was the Whispered ejaculation of
Cospéan, Bishop of Lisieux.
376 TEIE G ALLICAN CEIURCEI. CHAP. X.
under the vengeance of the Cardinal, were discharged from the
state prisons; and among the rest St. Cyran recovered his
liberty. He quitted Vincennes on the 16th of February, 1643,
and went direct to the monastery of Port Royal of Paris, where
Angélique Arnauld and her sisterhood had been so ong be-
seeching Heaven for his deliverance. Next he proceeded to
visit, the recluses of Port Royal des Champs. A touching
account of his intercourse with them on this occasion is given
in the Memoirs of Fontaine, who was one of the fraternity, and
acted as secretary to Antoine Arnauld.” St. Cyran seems to
have been deeply impressed with the belief that he was giving
them his parting instructions, and that his removal from the
world was at hand. His presentiment proved true; this extra-
ordinary man breathed his last at Paris on the 11th of October,
1643. He was buried at the Church of St. Jacques du Haut
Pas; the Archbishop of Bordeaux and four other prelates,
together with many lay friends of the highest rank, assisting at
his obsequies. -
Several prominent actors on the stage of public life in France
disappeared almost simultaneously. Louis XIII., his mother
Mary de Medici, Cardinal Richelieu, and the Abbé de St.
Cyran, all passed away within the space of a single year.
Louis was consoled on his deathbed by the ministrations of
Vincent de Paul, for whom he had always entertained senti-
ments of special veneration. Two subjects are said to have
weighed heavily on the conscience of the dying monarch; the
conversion of the Huguenots, and the responsibility of nominat-
ing to the highest church preferments. “Oh ! M. Vincent,” he
exclaimed, “if God should restore me to health, I would never
appoint any man a bishop who had not passed three years with
you!” Louis expired on the 14th of May, 1643. Throughout
life he had been under the spiritual dominion of the Jesuits.
Pathers Cotton, Arnoux, Seguiran, Suffren, Caussin, Sirmond,
and Dinet, successively acted as directors of the royal con-
science, and displayed no common gifts of tact and discretion
in the fulfilment of their office. It was most probably by the
advice of the last-named confessor that the state prisoners were
liberated after the death of Richelieu.
* Memoires your servir à l'histoire de Port Royal, par M. Fontaine, tom, i. p. 229.
A.D. 529. THE JANSENISTIC CONTROVERSY. 377
CH APT ER XI.
THE successors of Richelieu were not strong enough to carry
on the system of despotic repression to which France had
surrendered itself during more than eighteen years. Indeed,
it is doubtful whether even the Cardinal himself could have
maintained much longer the restraints which he had imposed
on the struggling spirit of ecclesiastical discord. No sooner
was that stern pressure withdrawn than an ebullition of
strife followed, which to the Gallican Church proved full
of peril and disaster, and which has left its permanent mark
upon the general condition of Christendom. This was the
Jansenistic controversy.
Before entering on the details of a contest so memorable
for the magnitude of its subject-matter, for the character of
the distinguished actors who engaged in it, and for its
ultimate consequences to the Church and to Society, it may
be well to cast a glance upon the previous history of the
theological questions which were now to be brought to an
issue.
In the early ages, the belief of Christians upon the mys-
teries of grace and free-will was moulded chiefly by the
writings of St. Augustine, that illustrious champion of the
faith against Manichean and Pelagian heresy, Not that the
Church ever adopted indiscriminately all the opinions of
Augustine on these subjects. His teaching was endorsed by
the great African Council against the Pelagians, by the
decrees of the Council of Orange (A.D. 529) against the
Massilians or Semi-Pelagians, and by a remarkable epistle of
Pope St. Celestine to the bishops of Gaul” (A.D. 431) to which
were appended certain articles or canons on the doctrine of
* Caelestint Papa: Epist. II. ad Episcopos Galliæ, ap. Sirmond., Concil. Ant.
Gall, tom, i. p. 58,
378 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
grace.” But the principles laid down in these documents are of
a general nature; the Church forbore to decide upon questions
which were not considered essential to the integrity of the
Divine Deposit. Thus it is affirmed, for instance, that “no man
can extricate himself from the ruin caused by Adam's fall by
his own free-will, or without the operation of the grace of
God.” “No man is good in himself, except through partici-
pation in the nature of Him who alone is good.” “No man,
although renewed by the grace of baptism, can conquer the
snares of the devil and the lusts of the flesh, except by the
daily assistance of God's grace enabling him to persevere.”
“No man can make a good use of his free-will except through
grace.” “All good works and merits are the gifts of God; who
works upon the hearts of men, and upon free-will itself, in such
a manner that every motion towards good proceeds from Him.”
“Grace avails not only to the pardon of past sin, but also to
make us love, and enable us to perform, that which we know to
be good.” “Grace does not take away free-will, but emanci-
pates it, and makes it clear instead of dark, upright instead of
infirm, cautious instead of thoughtless.” -
Augustine, however, found it necessary, in order to combat the
insidious cavils of the heretics of his day, to make a deeper investi-
gation into the problems of the spiritual world; and we need
not be surprised if in the course of it he trespassed upon regions
which lie beyond the ken of human intellect, and thus became
Sometimes inconsistent, and sometimes unintelligible.
Augustine does not deny the freedom of man's will; on the
contrary, he affirms it; f but with certain qualifications, which
leave it doubtful whether he uses that expression in the sense
commonly attached to it. He acknowledges that the will is
naturally free, but he contrasts this liberty with that which it
acquires supernaturally by Divine grace. To the former he seems
to attribute only an unlimited capacity for evil; the latter he
represents as impelled almost of necessity towards good.[
* Præteritorum Sedis Apostolicæ
JEpiscoporum Auctoritates, de Gratié
Dei et libero voluntatis arbitrio. Sir-
mond., tom. i. p. 58.
f Aug. de Grat. et lib. arbit., cap. 2,
9
| “Liberum arbitrium ad malum
sufficit, ad bonum autem parum est,
tis.”
nisi adjuvetur ab Omnipotenti bono.”
Aug. De Corrept. et Grat., cap. 11.
“In malo faciendo liber est quisque
justitiae, Servusque peccati; in bono
autem liber esse mullus potest, misi
fuerit liberatus ab Eo qui dixit, si vos
Filius liberaverit, tunc were liberi eri-
Ib., cap. 1,
A.D. 529. AUGUSTINE ON GRACE AND FREE-WILL. 379
In like manner he draws a contrast between the two kinds of
grace; that which belongs to the state of nature, and that which
is bestowed through Christ under the new covenant. In the
original state in which Adam was created, man possessed the
power to obey God, and to persevere in obedience, if he so
willed. This is called by Augustine the “adjutorium sine quo
non.” But the grace required by man in his fallen state—
the grace peculiar to the Gospel—is that which gives not only
power to obey, but the will also. This is the “adjutorium quo,
or per quod, fit actio.” This latter grace acts upon the will
“indefectibly and insuperably,” so that it never fails—never can
fail—of its effect.f
This effectual grace, however, belongs to the predestined
only, the number of whom is fixed and certain. Although it is
written “God will have all men to be saved,” this is to be under-
stood only of those who are foreordained to Salvation. These
will assuredly persevere unto the end; but those who are not to
persevere—those who will fall away from the Christian state
and die in their sins—have never been really sons of God, never
“separated from the mass of perdition,'
even during the time
when they lived uprightly and piously.[
Thus Augustine teaches virtually, if not in express terms,
that Divine grace is irresistible.
the freedom of the will?
But if so, what becomes of
Does it not follow that those who obey God do so from neces-
sity; and, on the other hand, that when grace is withheld, the
will is of necessity determined towards sin P
* “Talequippe erat adjutorium, quod
desereret câm vellet, et in quo per-
maneret si vellet; non quo fieret ut
Vellet. Haec prima est gratia quae
data est primo Adam; Sed häc potentior
est in Secundo Adam. Prima est enim,
quà fit ut habeat homo justitiam si
Velit; Secunda plus potest, quâ, etiam
fit ut velit.” “Fit quippe in nobis per
hanc Dei gratiam . . . . non Solium
posse quod volumus, verium etiam velle
quod possumus. Quod non fuit in
homine primo; umum enim horum in
illo fuit, alterum non fuit.”—De Cor-
Yept. et Grat., cap. 11.
“Aliud est adjutorium sine quo ali-
quid non fit, et aliud est adjutorium
quo aliquid fit . . . . Primo itaque
homini . . . . datum est adjutorium
perseverantiae, non quo fieret ut perse-
veraret, sed sine quo per liberum arbi-
trium perseverare non posset. Nunc .
Veró Sanctis in regnum Dei per gra-
tiam Dei praedestinatis non tale adju-
torium datur, sed tale ut eis perseve-
rantia ipsa dometur; non Solūm ut sine
isto dono perseverantes esse non pos-
sint, verum etiamut per hoc domum non
nisi perseverantes essent.”—Ib., cap. 12.
f “Subventum estigiºur infirmitati
voluntatis humanae, ut Divină Gratiâ.
indeclinabiliter et insuperabiliter age-
retur; et ideo, quamvis infirma, mon
tamen deficeret, neque adversitate ali-
quâ, vinceretur.” Ib., cap. 12.
# De Corrept, et Grat, cap. 9.
380 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CIIAP. XI.
In order to meet this objection, Augustine observes that
necessity is not incompatible, in one sense, with the freedom of
the will. Liberty is opposed, not to moral necessity, but to
actual violence or compulsion. A man may act voluntarily,
while at the same time it may be morally impossible that he
should act otherwise than he does; and whatsoever is done
willingly is also done freely." It is the essence of efficacious
grace, that it imparts the will to obey God; and therefore,
although such grace is necessarily followed by its effect, it does
no violence to the faculty of self-direction, inasmuch as the just
man obeys God from choice, from love, from the impulse of a
new and sanctified will.
By moral freedom, Augustine seems to have understood
simply the natural action of the human will. Taken in this
sense, his reasoning is just, for the will can only act by willing
to act; it cannot act in contradiction to itself; it cannot help
obeying the impulse towards good or evil which is inseparable
from its nature. If the essence of liberty, then, consists in spon-
taneity, the will must always be free, even though it be swayed
in point of fact by an irresistible necessity. But this is not the
ordinary acceptation of the term ; it is usually taken to signify
bomá fide ability to act or not to act—to move in one direction or
in the opposite—to choose or to reject—to indulge or to abstain.
The Augustinian tradition retained for several centuries its
ascendency in the theological schools of the West. But in the
course of ages the tone of Christian feeling gradually receded
from this system, which was obviously capable of being per-
Verted into a reckless fatalism. A reaction set in, and various
causes concurred to bring about important modifications in the
popular teaching, though not in the authoritative definitions, of
the Latin Church. A large section of the Schoolmen (the
Scotists) were strenuous asserters of the real freedom of the will.
Their rivals, the Thomists, professed to follow St. Augustine,
and in Some respects even went beyond him, since they held
that God moves the will by a direct impulse or power proceed-
ing from His own omnipotence; yet they taught that grace
* Aug. De Civitat. Dei, Lib. v. Cap. eam timeanus, ne nobis libertatem
10. “Si definitur esse necessitas, se- auferat voluntatis.” Cf. De Nat. et
cundium quam dicinus necesse esse ut | Gral., capp. 46, 47, 48.
ila sit aliquid, Yel ita fiat ; Inešcio cur
A.D. 1542. REACTION FROM AUGUSTINIANISM. 381
sufficient for salvation is granted to all the baptized through the
ordinary channels; thus excluding any notion which could be
taxed as derogatory to the goodness and justice of Almighty
God. The great Erasmus wrote a treatise against Luther (his
“Diatribe de libero arbitrio’), in which he exposed with severity
the pernicious tendency of the predestinarian scheme, and advo-
cated views of a more healthy and practical complexion; ascribing
the work of Salvation primarily to Divine grace, but maintaining
that grace may be abused, and that free-will co-operates with
God throughout the entire process of sanctification. The Theo-
logical Faculty of Paris expresses itself much to the same pur-
pose in one of the Articles drawn up by order of Francis I. in
1542, preparatory to the meeting of the General Council. “It
is to be held with the same constancy of faith, that man possesses
a free will, by which he is able to act well or ill, and by means
of which, even if he should have fallen into mortal sin, he may
rise again to a state of grace with the help of God.”"
The movement is further traceable in the records of the
Council of Trent. That assembly, among other subjects of
anxiety, was embarrassed by the bitter feud which reigned
between the Dominican and Franciscan orders. All parties
were agreed as to the urgent duty of condemning the neces-
sitarian theory of Luther; but it was not easy to do this without
offending the Dominicans — whose favourite dogma of the
“ praemotio physica’’ coincided to some extent with that of
the German Reformer in principle, though they abhorred his con-
clusions—and giving a too decided triumph to the Franciscans,
who professed opposite opinions. Taking these circumstances
into account, it will be seen that the Tridentine decrees are drawn
in terms which countenance to a remarkable extent the anti-
Augustinian doctrine. The 4th canon on Justification (Sess. IV.
cap. 16) runs as follows:—“If any one shall say that the free
will of man, by assenting to God exciting and calling, does not
co-operate in disposing and preparing itself to obtain the grace
of justification; or that it cannot refuse consent if it would, but
that, like a thing inanimate, it does nothing at all, but remains
in a merely passive state ; let him be amathema.” Again,
Canon TV. of the same session is thus expressed:—“If any one
* Contin. de Fleury, Liv. cxxx., § 30, 31.
382 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. XI.
shall say that it is not in the power of man to make his ways
evil, but that evil works are wrought by God as well as good,
not by permission only, but by His direct agency, in such sense
that the treason of Judas was no less His work than the calling
of Paul; let him be amathema.” In like manner when treating
of the gift of Perseverance (Sess. VI. cap. 13), the Council
declares that “all men ought to repose with confidence on the
help of God, since, whless they themselves are wanting to His
grace, He who hath begun the good work will also perfect it,
working in them to will and to do. Nevertheless, let those
who think they stand take heed lest they fall, and work out
their own salvation with fear and trembling.”
The gradual change of sentiment upon this question may be
further illustrated by reference to the Bull by which Pope
Pius W., in 1567, condemned the errors of Baius. Several of
the propositions” there branded as heretical are to be found, in
terms either identical or equivalent, in different parts of the
writings of the great Bishop of Hippo. Such, for instance, are
the 25th :—“All the works of unbelievers are sins, and the vir-
tues of the philosophers are vices.” The 27th —“Free will,
without the aid of God's grace, avails only to the commission of
sin.” The 39th —“What is done voluntarily, even though it
be done of necessity, is done freely.” The 40th :—“In all his
acts the sinner is subservient to a predominant desire.”
The fact that these and other similar statements had been
pronounced heretical and scandalous by the Apostolic See
occasioned the utmost perplexity to Jansenius, as he candidly
confesses in the second part of his work.f. He devotes three
chapters to a laboured attempt to explain them inoffensively,
and turn aside the edge of the Pontifical censure; but his rea-
soning is lame and inconclusive to the last degree.
The growing power of the Jesuits contributed to establish a
* Many of these propositions had
been previously censured as false and
heretical by the Theological Faculty
of Paris in a judgment of June 27,
1560. Baius was not mentioned by
name in the censure; notwithstanding
which he published soon afterwards an
elaborate statement explanatory of his
views on the point in question. In
some instances he approved the cem-
Sure; but, as to others, he complained
that the Faculty had misunderstood
him. He seems to have been a per-
timacious upholder of the notion of
liberty as opposed, not to moral neces-
sity, but Only to external constraint or
violence. Cont, de Flew, y, Liv, clv.
t Jans. De Statu Natura, Lapsæ, Lib.
iv. cap. 25.
A.D. 1588.
SYSTEM OF MOLINA. 383
style of teaching more in accordance with the grand principle
of man's moral freedom and responsibility. Without professing
openly views opposed to those of St. Augustine, members of that
Society held and asserted very generally, towards the end of
the sixteenth century, that the human will possesses a faculty
of disposing itself to make a good use of Divine grace; that
grace sufficient for conversion is bestowed on all, but that, inas-
much as it does not act in the way of positive compulsion or
necessity, it may either be complied with or rejected; and that
God predestines to Salvation those only by whom He foresees
that His gifts will be faithfully employed. These opinions were
presented to the world in a philosophical shape by a Spanish
Jesuit named Luis Molina, who published at Lisbon, in 1588,
his celebrated treatise ‘De liberi arbitrii cum Gratiae domis
concordiá.’ / According to Molina, the Divine Intellect compre-
hends three different species or modes of knowledge: “scientia
naturalis,” or that which relates to events caused immediately
by God himself; “scientia libera,” which belongs to things
depending on His own free will and choice; and “scientia
media,” which is concerned with future contingencies, dependent
on the agency of man under particular circumstances. It is
upon this latter kind of knowledge that God founds His decrees
of predestination and election. Predestination, consequently, is
not absolute or unconditional, but proceeds upon God's fore-
knowledge of the conduct of individuals in the use of their
natural faculties and of the privileges of their Christian calling.”
Thus interpreted, the doctrine of eternal election is compatible
with the idea of moral probation, with the unconstrained exer-
cise of man’s free will, and with the truth of future judgment
according to works. Yet the system of Molina is no more than
a plausible approach to the solution of problems which, as all
must feel, are not to be fathomed to the bottom by our finite
powers. It is open to objection as derogating apparently from
* This was the opinion of St. François
de Sales, as appears from the following
extract from a letter addressed by him
to F. Lessius of Louvain, Aug. 26,
1613. “Cognovi Patermitatem vestram
sententiam illam, antiquitate, Suavitate,
ac Scripturarum nativä auctoritate no-
bilissimam, de Praedestimatione ad Glo-
riam post praevisa opera amplecti ac
tueri; quod Sané mihi gratissimum fuit,
quinimirüm eam Semper, ut Dei mise-
ricordiae ac grabiae magis consentaneam,
veriorem ac amabiliorem existimavi;
quod etiam tantisper in libello de
Amore Dei indicavi.”
384 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. XI.
the sovereignty of Divine grace by making it subject to the
independent agency of man; for Molina, while admitting the
necessity both of prevenient and assisting grace, yet held that
without the adhesion of the natural will grace does not become
effectual to its designed purpose. He coincided in this respect
with the so-called Semi-Pelagians—a school of theology founded
in the fifth century by Cassianus and other monks of the Abbey
of S. Victor at Marseilles. The teaching of these “Massilians”
was in considerable vogue for some time in the south of France;
but it was rejected ultimately, as conflicting with the paramount
authority of St. Augustine.” It was vigorously combated by
S. Prosper of Aquitaine, and was censured by the Council of
Orange, A.D. 529. By means of a slightly varying terminology,
Molina and his followers avoided the precise formula in which
the misbelief of the Semi-Pelagians had been condemned by the
ancient Church.
The Jesuits/never formally acknowledged the theory of
Molina to be their own; but it was natural that they should
defend his book, out of zeal for the honour and interest of their
Society. The work was violently attacked by the Dominicans
and other Augustinian divines;%ma at length, in 1598, Pope
Clement VIII. was induced to appoint a commission to examine
it, which took the name of the “Congregatio de auxiliis,” as
having for its subject the supernatural assistance given to man-
kind by Divine grace. Years of tedious controversy followed.
Clement himself leaned towards the Thomists; and it is said
that at one time he was on the point of deciding in their favour,
but was deterred by the influence of Cardinal du Perron, who
declared that if the “praedeterminatio physica” were defined
to be the doctrine of the Church, he would undertake to make
all the Protestants in Europe subscribe to it.f Clement died in
1605, leaving the cause undecided. The sittings of the Congre-
gation were resumed under Paul W., but little progress was
made towards a definite conclusion. This Pope at length referred
the questions in debate to two of the greatest theologians
of the time, François de Sales and Du Perron. The advice
which they tendered to him was never made public, but its
* Two of St. Augustine's treatises— rected against the Semi-Pelagians.
* De Prædestinatione Sanctorum ' and f D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronol., tom, i.
* De Domo Perseverantiaé ' — were di- p. 85.
A. p. 1607. THE CONGREGATION DE AUXILIIs. 385
purport may be inferred from the result. On the 28th of
August, 1607, the Pope held a meeting of the Congregation,
and announced that their labours were at an end; that he
would make known his decision when he judged it expedient;
and that in the mean time he prohibited all agitation of the
disputed questions, and warned the contending parties to avoid
mutual recrimination and imputations of false doctrine. No
formal judgment was ever issued. The Holy See, by this wise
policy, virtually granted toleration to both systems, on the under-
standing that nothing should be publicly advanced on one side
or the other which contravened the authoritative decrees of the
Church, whether ancient or modern. The effect, however, was
a triumph for the Molinists; who thus for the first time obtained
a quasi-recognition of their orthodoxy from the chair of
St. Peter.
Such was the state of parties in this controversy about the
time when Jansenius began to apply himself seriously to the
study of the works of St. Augustine. That divine had been a
pupil of Baius in the University of Louvain; where he had
learned both to identify the views of his master with the teaching
of the “doctor of grace,” and to regard the latter as an exclusive
and infallible Oracle in the exposition of Catholic truth. During
a sojourn at Paris in 1605, Jansenius became acquainted with
Du Werger de Hauranne; and an intimate friendship was soon
formed between these two young enthusiasts. Their dispositions
were very similar; their favourite studies had converged upon
the same engrossing theme, and they were well fitted to act in
concert for the same objects in the busy drama of life. In 1611
they repaired together to Bayonne, the native place of De
Hauranne; and here they dedicated themselves for the space of
five years, with intense and indefatigable ardour, to the study of
Holy Scripture and patristic divinity, especially the writings
of St. Augustine. During that period the plan of operations
was devised and matured, by which they proposed to restore to
the Church the true primitive doctrine of grace, which for many
centuries past (as they affirmed) had been utterly obscured and
lost.
In 1616 the Bishop of Bayonne, who had been translated to
the Archbishopric of Tours, carried Jansenius and De Hauranne
with him to the north of France. The two friends now separated.
VOL. I. 2 C.
386 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
Jansenius returned to Louvain, where he became President of
the College of S. Pulcheria and Professor of Divinity. De
Hauranne was recommended by the new Archbishop of Tours
to his suffragan the Bishop of Poitiers, by whom he was made
Grand Vicar of that diocese, Canon of the Cathedral, and lastly
Abbot of S. Cyran—a dignity which the bishop himself resigned
in his favour. His subsequent history has already been detailed
in these pages. -
The laborious investigations which engrossed the mind of
Jansenius were prosecuted without intermission till his death in
the year 1638. The fruit of this lifelong toil—the too-celebrated
‘Augustinus” — was entrusted by his will to his literary
executors, Libert Fromont and Henri Calenus, who published it
at Louvain in 1640, suppressing a letter written by the author
just before his death, in which he had submitted himself and his
work, in terms of profound humility, to the judgment of the
Holy See. The book soon found its way into France, and was
reprinted at Paris in 1641, with the official approbation of six
doctors of the Sorbonne. Another edition appeared not long
afterwards at Touen. Richelieu, who, as we have seen in a
preceding chapter, had conceived a violent prejudice against
Jansenius and his school, exerted himself to procure a censure
of the “Augustinus’ from the Sorbonne, but without success.
The Jesuits, however, made such effectual use of their influence
at Rome, that a decree of the Inquisition was obtained in August,
1641, condemning the work, not on the score of false doctrine,
but as disrespectful to the Holy See, which had expressly enjoined
silence on those controverted questions. Early in the year fol-
lowing Pope Urban VIII., by his bull “In eminenti,” renewed
the censures of his predecessors Pius W. and Gregory XIII. on the
predestinarian errors of Baius, and prohibited the ‘Augustinus,’
as reproducing those reprehensible views. But the decree of
the Inquisition was powerless in France, that tribunal being
unrecognized by the law; and the bull “In eminenti” was for
a long time treated as invalid, by reason of an alleged ambiguity
as to the date of its publication. Meanwhile the ‘Augustinus’
* The title at full length is ‘Cor- de humanae naturae Sanitate, aegri-
nelii Jansenii Episcopi Iprºnsis Augus- tudine, Medicină, adversus Pelagianos
linus; seu doctrina Sancti Augustini et Massilienses.’
A.D. 1642. JANSENISM-THE • AUGUSTINUS.’ 387
was read with avidity, and the disciples of Jansenius and St.
Cyran rapidly multiplied on all sides.
The Jansenists (they were by this time of sufficient importance
to be called by the name which they have ever since borne in
history) employed every available artifice to prevent the recep-
tion of the bull “In eminenti,” both in Flanders and in France.
They pretended that it could hot be genuine, since it professed
to be issued at Rome on the 6th of March, 1641, whereas the
copy despatched to Brussels by the Nuncio at Cologne was dated
in 1642. This arose simply from the difference between the old
and new calendars as to the time of commencing the year. The
ancient computation, according to which the year began on the
Feast of the Annunciation, March 25, was in use at Rome, and
therefore the 6th of March fell within the year 1641; but the
Nuncio, writing from Cologne, had followed the modern almanac,
which of course reckoned the whole of that month in 1642.*
It was alleged, further, that the Jesuits had gained over some
of the officials of the Roman curia, and that by their means the
bull had been deliberately falsified. The ‘Augustinus, it was
urged, was the result of twenty-two years' unremitting study of
the entire works of the “doctor of grace;” it was altogether
inconceivable, therefore, that it should not be an accurate
transcript of his mind. But St. Augustine had ever been ac-
counted the legitimate interpreter of the Church of the West
in that department of theology; so that, in censuring Jan-
senius, the Pope would be contradicting the authoritative
tradition of the Church herself. The University of Louvain
endorsed these arguments in favour of the late Bishop of
Ypres, who had been one of its most distinguished ornaments;
and the clergy of the Netherlands, in spite of repeated remon-
strances from Rome, remained obstinate in refusing to accept
the bull.
Nor was it received more cordially in France. The Nuncio
Grimaldi laid it before the Royal Council on ecclesiastical
affairs, urging that it should be published with the usual
formalities. Several members of the Board—Vincent de Paul
among the number f-spoke in support of the bull; but the
* D'Avrigny, Mem. Chronol., tom. i. of Jansenius to be identical with that
p. 151. of Baius, already condemned by the
+ Vincent de Paul held the doctrine | Church. He declared, º that
2 C. 2
388 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. XI.
majority were of the contrary opinion, and in consequence no
action was taken on the subject. Some few French prelates
published mandements enjoining obedience to the Pope's de-
cree; among them was the Archbishop of Paris, Jean François
de Gondi. “Our holy Father the Pope,” he wrote, in a pastoral
dated December 11th, 1643, “ having taken measures to pre-
serve the peace of the Church in the dangers which now threaten
it, it becomes our duty to notify to you his decision, in order
that you may receive it as proceeding from that chair where
the Divine Spirit vouchsafes. His utterances; that you may
obey it with all the respect and submission which are due to it;
and that those who by the love of disputation, rather than by
the love of truth, may have been led astray into contrary senti-
ments may be recalled by the voice of the Universal Pastor to
the unity of the Catholic faith. To this end we do, by our
archiepiscopal authority, prohibit the book called ‘Augus-
tinus, lately published under the name of Cornelius Janse-
nius, Bishop of Ypres, which contains propositions condemned
as heretical by the Holy See. Let no man, then, henceforth
have the temerity to maintain the opinions proscribed by this
constitution.”
When the bull was presented to the Sorbonne, backed by
a Royal lettre de cachet and by the Archbishop's pastoral
circular, it was objected to on the ground that it recited
certain decrees of the Inquisition,-a tribunal unknown to
French law. A committee, however, was appointed to ex-
amine the matter. At this moment a pamphlet appeared
with the title of “Difficultés Sur la bulle qui porte defense de
lire Jansénius.’” It was from the pen of Antoine Arnauld,
who now, at scarcely more than thirty years of age, began to
signalise himself in the front rank of Jansenist polemics. The
performance displayed rare ability, and doubtless had its influ-
ence on the report of the committee. The Sorbonne ultimately
decided against the registration of the bull; but took occasion
at the same time to forbid all doctors and bachelors to main-
tain the propositions therein censured by Pope Urban, together
with the errors of Baius condemned by his predecessors.f
St. Cyran had frankly acknowledged cent de Pawl, tom. ii. p. 583.
that the main object of the present * CEuvres d’Arnauld, tom. xxvi.
movement was to disºred.t and ruin f Gerberon, Hist. Genérale du Jan-
the Jesuits. See Collet, Vie de S. Vin- senisme, tom. i. p. 150.
A.D. 1644. ANTONE ARN AULD l).EFENDS JANSEN 1U.S. 389
These proceedings only served to swell the tide of agitation
excited by the ill-starred publication of Jansenius. Isaac
Habert, doctor of the Sorbonne and Canon “Théologal” of
Notre Dame, attacked it widlently from the pulpit of that
cathedral. This brought him into conflict with Arnauld, who,
in 1644, published his first ‘Apology for Jansenius.’ Habert
promptly rejoined with his ‘Defense de la foi de l'Eglise et de
l’ancienne doctrine de Sorbonne touchant les principaux points
de la grace.' Arnauld's ‘Second Apology soon followed, in a
style of greater warmth and vigour than the first; he vindi-
cated the Flemish prelate with the utmost vehemence from
the imputation of heresy, and insisted that his book contained
neither more nor less than the pure invariable belief of the
Church Catholic. These productions caused a wonderful sensa-
tion, and enraged the Ultramontanes beyond measure. Arnauld
had composed a third Apology, which was in the hands of
the printer, when his antagonist Habert was promoted to the
bishopric of Vabres, upon which he suppressed it out of respect
for the episcopal office.
Arnauld was never more completely in his element than in
the “heady fight” of controversy. While thus bearing the
brunt of the fray on behalf of Jansenius, he was engaged in
another contest, which placed him in still more direct oppo-
sition to the Jesuits. A feud of long standing existed between
that Society and the Arnauld family. The father of Antoine
Arnauld, formerly Procureur-Général to Queen Catherine de
Medici, and one of the most celebrated advocates at the bar of
Paris, had acted as counsel for the University against the
Jesuits on an important occasion (already alluded to f) in
the year 1594, and had gained his cause. This success, the
consequence of which was the banishment of the Order from
France, was never forgotten or forgiven by the defeated party.
Antoine, the youngest Son of the great pleader, was born in
1612, and at an early age manifested, extraordinary talent,
combined with an almost insatiable love of study. He applied
institution dates from the Council of
preacher attached to cathedral and | Basle and the Pragmatic Sanction of
collegiate churches, who occupied the Bourges, and was confirmed by the
pulpit on Sundays and great festi- Council of Trent. The theologal en-
vals, and gave lectures on Scripture joyed a canonry by virtue of his office,
and divinity during the week. The f See above, Chap. III. p. 197.
* The “theologal " was a special
390 THE GALLICAN CHURCHI. CHAP. XI.
himself to theology, and became a pupil of Lescot; but after a
time grew dissatisfied with the views of that divine, and adopted
with intense ardour those of Jansenius and St. Cyran. On this
account he met with considerabke difficulty in proceeding to
degrees at the Sorbonne; but these being at length overcome,
Arnauld acquitted himself in the prescribed exercises to the
amazement (ad stuporem) of the examiners, and was received
doctor of the Sorbonne in 1641. He had been ordained priest
in the previous year. In his academical theses Arnauld had
shewn himself vehemently opposed to the system commonly
advocated by the Jesuits; but his active warfare with the In-
stitute commenced on the occasion of his treatise ‘T)e la fré-
quente Communion,’ which was published in August, 1643. It
arose from the following circumstances. -” -
A too general laxity seems to have prevailed among Catholics
of that day with regard to the use of the Sacraments, particu-
larly those of Penance and the Eucharist. Absolution was dis-
pensed in the confessional upon terms which were practically
subversive of all discipline. Even in the case of gross habitual
sinners, it was seldom attempted to insist on satisfactory proof
of penitence, according to primitive rule, before admission to
the holy mysteries. So long as a mechanical round of external
ceremonies was duly practised, the confessor laid little or no
stress on the necessity of inward purity and contrition of heart.
This state of things resulted, in great measure, from the
false casuistry and worldly-minded policy of the Jesuits. These
Fathers had gained for themselves an unrivalled reputation as
directors of the conscience. It was, no doubt, substantially
well founded; but, in order to enlarge and perpetuate it, they
had been induced to adopt various maxims and expedients
which were calculated to make religion palatable to men living
an ordinary life in the world; to render the outward require-
ments of the Gospel compatible with political ambition, with
selfish indolence, or even with fashionable dissipation. The so-
called Reformers, unfortunately, had depreciated and disparaged
the visible means of grace. Everything, in their estimation,
was of secondary importance compared with certain subjective
emotional qualities — the peculiar marks, as they regarded
them, of the regenerate mind. Confession and absolution they
discarded as unnecessary, if not positively anti-Christian; even
A.D. 1644. PREVAILING ABUSE OF THE SACRAMENTS. 391
the Holy Eucharist was valued by them chiefly as an expressive
symbol, designed to quicken the moral sense and spiritual affec-
tions of the recipient. The Jesuits, in their zeal against these
fundamental errors, had countenanced notions Scarcely less
objectionable in the opposite direction; and a dangerous re-
action had ensued. The Jansenists felt the necessity of making
an effort to readjust the balance; and their protest was raised
with equal vigour against the doctrinal aberrations of Geneva
and the practical abuses of Rome in its Ultramontane dress.
The movement originated by St. Cyran and Arnauld aimed at
restoring the reality and power of religion through the right
use of its sacramental Ordinances. It has sometimes been ima-
gined that, because the Jansenists agreed with the disciples of
Calvin in extolling the sovereign efficacy of Divine grace,
therefore the two systems were in all respects identical. Jan-
senism has been represented as simply another phase of rebel-
lion against the authority of the existing Church; but this is
a misconception of its character. The divines of that school
clung steadfastly to the Orthodox tradition as to the Super-
natural virtue of the Sacraments, the divine authority of the
Priesthood, the power of the Keys, the office of the Church as
the infallible teacher and judge of truth; and thus severed them-
selves by a broad line of demarcation from Protestant sec-
taries, however designated. They were, in the strictest sense,
Catholics; but their ideal of Catholicism was not an easy,
accommodating system, which reconciled high religious pro-
fession with a life of unrestrained worldliness, but an earnest
application of Christian doctrine and Christian ordinances to
the indispensable work of man's personal renewal in holiness.
If they erred (as unquestionably they did err) by taking an
exaggerated and distorted view of the sense of Holy Scripture
and the Fathers on certain points of metaphysical theology, all
honour is due to them, nevertheless, for their endeavours
to revive the flame of evangelical piety among the mass of
nominal Christians, and to withstand the flood of Sadducean
profaneness which threatened to inundate the Sanctuary of
the Church. - - -
Such, generally, was the purpose of Arnauld's great Work,
‘Sur la fréquente Communion.’ The Princess de Rohan-
Guémené, a court beauty whose early life had been notoriously
392 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
irregular, had placed herself in 1639 under the spiritual guid-
ance of the Abbé de St. Cyran. From him she received a rule
of considerable strictness; special restraint being imposed upon
her with regard to certain worldly habits and indulgences which
had been proved by experience to be temptations to sin. One
day the Princess was asked by her friend the Marquise de
Sablé to accompany her to a ball; she declined, on the ground
that she had received the holy Communion the same morning,
and that under such circumstances the instructions of her
confessor forbade her to spend the evening in gay amusement.
Eurther discussion ensued between the two ladies as to the
different principles by which each was governed. The rule
prescribed by St. Cyran was submitted to F. de Sesmaisons, a
Jesuit, the confessor of Mme. de Sablé; and that divine thought
proper to publish a treatise in opposition to it, in which both
St. Cyran and his system of spiritual direction were severely
criticised. Among other things SeSmaisons was rash enough
to assert that “the more destitute we are of grace, the more
boldly ought we to approach Jesus Christ in the holy Eucharist;
the more full we are of self-love and Worldliness, the more
often ought we to communicate.” It was to refute this mon-
strous paradox that Arnauld composed his book on “Frequent
Communion ;’ One of the finest specimens of close and exact
reasoning in the French language. Its appearance has been
styled an epoch in the national literature, from its luminous
perspicuity and irresistible force of logic.” Sixteen prelates
and twenty doctors of divinity stamped it with their approba-
tion, expressed in unqualified terms. It is of great length,
Occupying nearly the whole of one of the quarto volumes of
Arnauld's works.f
The main position for which the author contends is this;
that it is not desirable to encourage indiscriminately the habit
of partaking of the holy Communion every week; that those
whose consciences are stained by mortal sin ought not to
approach the Lord's Table immediately after they have con-
fessed, but to abstain for a season, in order to prepare and
purify themselves by exercises of penitence. He reviews the
* Bonav. Racine, Brist. Eccles. tom. xii. Art. 18.
f (Euvres d’Arnauld, tom, xxvii.
A.D. 1644. ANT. ARNAULD ON FREQUENT COMMUNION. 393
penitential discipline of the early Church, and shows that
the Fathers enjoined, in the first place, confession ; next,
penance; thirdly, the fulfilment of that penance, extending
Over a sufficient space of time; and lastly, absolution, to be
immediately followed by Communion. If in modern times the
primitive rule cannot be carried out in its strict letter, its
spirit, Says Arnauld, ought at least to be preserved; and other
means should be adopted to compensate for that outward
penance, which was found so conducive to true and solid
conversion. “According to the doctrine of the Fathers, it is
no affair of a moment to dispose sinners to receive with profit
the absolution of the priest; and something more than words
is requisite to satisfy the priest of the reality of a sinner's
repentance. The new man is not formed instantaneously, any
more than the old; it is developed by degrees, and often a long
time passes before it actually comes to the birth. The work of
reclaiming a soul to God and rescuing it from Satan and sin,
is not such an easy matter as to warrant one in supposing that
as soon as sin has been verbally confessed, and a resolution has
been declared to serve God for the future, the effect follows at
once and of course; that all those chains are instantly broken
which withhold the soul from God, that the heart of stone is
suddenly transformed into a heart of flesh, and that, whereas
formerly all its desires were centred in the creature, it acquires,
as if by magic, a will devoted exclusively to the service of
Jesus Christ. Others may expect this if they please; for myself,
I consider it safer to follow the advice of Augustine and all
the other Fathers, to shun precipitate remedies, and to aspire to
the higher graces of the spiritual life by the means which
Christ himself has pointed out—by asking, by seeking, by
knocking; in short, to establish the work of conversion upon
the solid basis of a lengthened and serious repentance; keeping
constantly in view the admonition of the Wise Man, “An inherit-
ance may be gotten hastily at the beginning, but the end thereof
shall not be blessed.”” *
In treating, towards the conclusion of his work, of the dis-
positions which qualify the penitent to communicate profitably,
Arnauld, in his zeal against the errors he is combating, is
* Prov, xx. 21.
394 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
betrayed into a tone of exaggeration ; insisting on So lofty a
standard of attainment in some particulars, as to run the risk
of repelling, instead of encouraging, the timid and sensitive
mind.
Yet, while enlarging on the duty of systematic preparation for
holy Communion, to protect the Sacrament from abuse, the author
severely reprehends those who through mere indolence and
carelessness remain contentedly strangers to the Lord's Table.
“When I speak of thus separating oneself for a time from the
Body of the Son of God, the better to prepare for its reception,
I am very far from excusing the culpable negligence of those
who are glad to escape from the duty of frequent Communion
under shelter of a religious pretext; for the same thing is
done in their case through an indifference which Holy Scrip-
ture threatens with the severest penalties, that with others
arises from feelings of profound humility, and from love to
Christ as fervent as it is full of veneration. As there was
formerly a custom of deferring the administration of baptism,
which the Church approved when it was deferred for the sake
of long-continued preparation and probation, while it was con-
demned when men postponed baptism merely that they might
lead a worldly licentious life, such as they knew they could
not lead after baptism; so there is a way of postponing holy
Communion which the Church approves, when men abstain in
order to give time for bringing forth the fruits of real peni-
tence, while the same habit is repudiated and condemned by
the Church when it proceeds from coldness and insensibility
towards holy things;–a state of mind so perilous that the
Church exerts her utmost emergies to withstand it, since it tends
directly to impiety and unbelief.””
This brief Summary may serve to indicate the general scope
of Arnauld's book, though it can give but a faint notion of the
ability displayed in its execution. The work produced an
extraordinary sensation in the religious world. The Jesuits
—although neither their Society as a whole, nor F. Sesmaisons
* Ant. Arnauld, De la frequente Com- mond; that of the former being en-
munion, Preface, § vii. titled De Paºmilemutiá Publicá et Prag-
f Various answers to it were pub- paratione ad Communiotem, and of the
lished, the most important of which latter, Historia Paenitentia, Publica?,
Were by the Jesuits Petau and Sir-
&O
A.D. 1644. INTRIGUES AGAINST ANTONE ARNAULD. 395
in particular, was mentioned by name—assailed it with a rabid
malignity which knew no bounds. In the teeth of the unde-
niable evidence of Catholic antiquity, in defiance of the recorded
judgment of the most distinguished prelates and divines of
France, the indignant fathers of the Collège de Clermont heaped
upon Arnauld and his book every species of scurrilous abuse.
One of them, F. Nouet, launched from the pulpit of their prin-
cipal church at Paris a series of outrageous philippics, in which
not only the author himself, but the bishops and divines who
had endorsed his doctrine, were held up to public reprobation.
No epithet was too extravagant for the occasion. “Falsifier of
the Fathers, ignorant, fantastical, fanatical, mad, blind, serpent,
Scorpion, monster, wolf in sheep's clothing, labouring to ruin
the Church after the pattern of Luther and Calvin, under pre-
tence of reforming it; ” such are a few choice extracts from
the vocabulary of this foul-mouthed orator. The bishops, who
were assembled at one of their occasional meetings in the capital,
justly resented his insolence. Nouet was summoned to their
presence, sternly reprimanded, and compelled to apologise upon
his knees; added to which a formal retractation was exacted
from him of the offensive language of his sermons, and this
document was printed and circulated throughout the kingdom.”
This humiliation did not deter the Jesuits from prosecuting
their schemes of vengeance against Arnauld. They attempted
to obtain an order from the queen for his incarceration in the
Bastile; but without success. Mazarin consented, however, to
forward their views by other means; and Arnauld received a
royal command to repair forthwith to Rome, and there submit
himself and his book to the judgment of the Sovereign Pontifff
By way of justifying this arbitrary measure, it was alleged that
the agitation which prevailed in France made it desirable to
have the affair examined at a distance from home; and that
many of the bishops, having already expressed their approbation
of the work, were disqualified from acting in the capacity of
judges in the cause. But the proceeding was manifestly un-
constitutional in every point of view. If Arnauld had com-
* See his ‘Satisfaction,’ in the Me- The Chancellor Seguier expressed
moires du Clergé, tom. i. p. 580. this opinion in the Royal Council.
f Histoire du Port Royal, tom. v. p. See the Memoirs of Omer Talon. (Peti-
373. - | tot's Collection.)
396 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
mitted an ecclesiastical offence, his proper judges were the
bishops of the realm ; if a civil offence, he could not be arraigned,
as a French subject, before any but a French tribunal. Ener-
getic remonstrances were made by the University of Paris, the
Theological Faculty, the Courts of Parliament, and the prelates
who had recommended the work; and the Regent, though for
a time she seemed disposed to enforce her illegal mandate, at
last found it prudent to give way." Arnauld thus escaped a
Snare which threatened his personal safety; for it seems pro-
bable that, had he gone to Rome, he would have been consigned
to the dungeons of the Inquisition.f As it was, he thought it
advisable to conceal himself; and accordingly he spent no less
than twenty years from this time in various places of secure
retreat, known only to a few confidential friends. He did not
re-appear in public till after the “Peace of Clement IX,” in
1668. . -
The Jesuits, conscious that if the principles enunciated by
Arnauld should prevail, their own credit as spiritual guides
must needs decline proportionably, strained every nerve to pro-
cure a sentence of condemnation from Rome upon the book of
‘Frequent Communion. Two of their Order, Fathers Brisacier
and Benoise, were commissioned to press the affair at the
Papal Court, where they were actively supported by Cardinals
Albizzi and Barberini, the former Assessor of the Inquisition,
the latter the Pope's favourite nephew. The friends of Arnauld,
on their part, defended him with enthusiastic zeal. The prelates
who had recommended his work, headed by the Archbishop of
Sens, wrote a letter to Pope Urban (April 5th, 1644), in which
they animadverted on the insolent behaviour and dangerous
doctrines of the Jesuits, and repelled the calumnies which had
been circulated against the teaching of Arnauld. “We cannot
conceal what we witness and experience day by day, that certain
persons are attempting to establish among us maxims, preju-
dicial to the whole ecclesiastical body, and especially to the
episcopal order; maxims which encourage a deplorable misuse
of the holy Sacraments, and which, instead of providing means
towards correcting and purifying the depraved morals of the
* Omer Talon, Mémoires, tom. i. p. 279. (Petitot.)
f Mémoires de Lancelot, p. 272.
A.D. 1644. LETTER OF THE BISHOPS TO URBAN WIII. 397
age, suggest palliations which tend to justify them, as every
one may clearly perceive by examining their publications.
. . . . . So much are they incensed by the recent exposure of
a member of their Order, whose views have been refuted by evi-
dence the most plain and convincing drawn from the writings
of the Fathers, that they are employing all sorts of expedients
for destroying the authority of our judgment in this matter;
they decry the doctrine upon which that judgment rests, and
strive to render odious the author who has thus faithfully
interpreted the ancient tradition of the Church.” The bishops
proceed to say that they anticipate important benefits from
the appearance of Arnauld's work, particularly as a means of
counteracting the false casuistry of certain manuals lately put
forth, some of which had been already justly censured by his
|Holiness.”
Annexed to this letter was a declaration by Arnauld himself,
who protested that, as in composing the treatise in question
he had been actuated solely by the love of truth and zeal for
the Salvation of Souls, so he wished to submit it in all sincerity
to the judgment of the Roman Church; of the Pope, whom he
revered as the sovereign Vicar of Christ upon earth; of the
Archbishop of Paris, to whom he was prepared to pay, at all
times and in all things, the obedience which he had promised
by his ordination vow ; and of the Faculty of Theology, whom
he honoured as his mother, and for whom he should preserve
through life a profound and ardent affection. “And as I hope.”
he continues, “that by the grace of God, neither the desire
of temporal gain nor the fear of temporal calamity will ever
hinder me from defending the truth, so no stubborn attachment
to my own opinions will ever cause me to forget in the least
degree the entire submission which I owe and will always
render to the Church, whose authority I acknowledge as that of
Jesus Christ himself, and which is one and indefectible in the
succession of its pastors and its Councils, from the first century
down to the present, and from this day to the end of the
world.” f
After the death of Urban VIII, the same prelates addressed
* Alluding to the Somme des Péchés It is satirized by Pascal in the 4th of
of the Jesuit Baumy, which lºad been the ‘Provincial Letters.'
condemned by the Inquisition in 1640. f CEuvres d’Arnauld, tom. xxviii.
398 --- THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
themselves in similar terms to his successor Innocent X. They
also accredited a doctor of the Sorbonne named Bourgeois,
one of the twenty-four who had sanctioned Arnauld's book, as
their agent in the affair at the Papal Court. Bourgeois reached
Rome in April, 1645, and displayed remarkable acuteness in
the discharge of his mission. After protracted delays, he was
at last informed that the Inquisitors had unanimously deter-
mined that there was nothing worthy of censure in the doctrine
set forth by Arnauld ; and the Pope assured him, in a private
audience, that no event since his accession had given him so
much joy as the favourable report made to him in this case by
the Congregation of the Holy Office. He charged Bourgeois
to inform the French prelates, and likewise Arnauld, of the
interest he had taken in the affair, and of his Satisfaction at its
happy termination.* -
By way of compensation to the Jesuits for this mortifying
defeat, the Inquisition condemned an incidental expression in
the Preface to the treatise on “Frequent Communion,’ to the
effect that “St. Peter and St. Paul are two heads of the Church
who are virtually one.” f The phrase had been inserted, need-
lessly and injudiciously, by De Barcos, nephew of the Abbé de
St. Cyran, a meddlesome person of inferior stamp. It was
held to be injurious to the Roman See, which founds its
claim to primacy and universal authority on its succession from
St. Peter alone; and some reference was apprehended to the
project attributed at one time to Richelieu, of setting up in
France a national patriarchate, with independent rights derived
from St. Paul. Such, at least, was the Ostensible ground for
taking notice of the passage; but it was probably a mere
pretext. The Pope's decree, denouncing as heretical the notion
of equal or co-ordinate authority between St. Peter and St. Paul,
as joint heads of the Church, appeared in January, 1647; it
was worded, however, in such a manner as to be, in the opinion
of the Jansenists, inapplicable to the statement in Arnauld's
book. The Nuncio in France ordered it to be printed without
ii. Liv. xi.
§ The obnoxious paragraph ran as
follows. The author is speaking of
* See the Relation, du Docteur Bowr-
geois. OEwvres d’Arnauld, tom. xxviii.
Appendix.
f January 24, 1647. St. Peter’s repentance after his fall.
| D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronolog., tom. “L’humilité de ce grand Apôtre a €té
ii. p. 189. Histoire de Port Royal, Pt. depuis imitée par S. Paul, qui est
A.D. 1647. PROSELYTES TO JANSENISM. 399
waiting for the usual formalities; upon which it was immedi-
ately attacked as illegal. On the 27th the Parliament issued
an arrêt forbidding its publication or execution. These curious
proceedings were at length thus brought to a close.
The triumphant acquittal of Arnauld of course reflected new
Justre on the Jansenist community. Its effect was seen ere
long in the augmented number of the inmates of Port Royal des
Champs. Many notable conversions took place at this period
among persons of different professions and various classes of
Society, prompted by a common impulse to renounce the world
and devote themselves to God's service in that ascetic retreat :
—“like so many mariners,” says one of the historians, * “who,
having suffered the calamities of shipwreck, find shelter in the
friendly haven whither the all-powerful and merciful hand of
God conducts them.” “God himself,” says another writer,i
“was the pillar that led them into this wilderness; the way
by which they came thither; the guide who brought them
there in Safety; the hand which supported them there; the
almighty arm which sustained them there with celestial manna.
In that desert might be seen men of lofty birth clad in the
garments of poverty and employed in the most fatiguing labours,
with nothing to distinguish them from those placed by nature
in that condition, except the noble mien which betrayed them,
and the devout silence with which they applied themselves to
their tasks. These saintly husbandmen had trodden under
foot all earthly considerations. They could reply to those who
charged them with fanaticism in the words used on a similar
Occasion by St. Paulinus: “It is not this garden, but Paradise,
that I prefer to the world I have abandoned.”
Proselytes were made by the Jansenists about this time from
Some of the most illustrious families of France: those, for instance,
l'autre Ceuil de la tête de Jesus Christ,
comme dit un Père; qui se retira peu
de temps après son baptème dans les
deserts de l'Arabie pour y pleurer son
|péché dans la separation de toute
l'Eglise, De Sorte que l’on voit dans
les deux chefs de l'Eglise, qui n'en
font qu'un, le modèle de la penitence.”
The clause of the Papal decree, limiting
the application of the censure, was
this:—“Propositionem hanc, ita expli-
catam ut pomat omnimodam aequalita-
tem inter sanctos Petrum et Paulum,
sine subordinatione S. Pauli ad S.
Petrum in potestate Supremä et regi-
mine Universalis IEcclesiae, haereticam
censuit et declaravit.”
* Clemencet, Hist, de Port Royal,
tom. ii.
f Thomas du Fossé, Mémoires.
400 THE GALLICAN CEIURCEI. CHAP. XI,
of the Duc de Liancour, the Duc de Roannez, the Prince de
Guémené, the Duc de Luynes, and the Marquis de Sablé.
Meanwhile the flames of intestine discord were once more
kindled throughout the kingdom. Mazarin, by a series of irri-
tating and vexatious measures, had made himself odious to the
nation. The Queen-Regent supported him with blind parti-
ality. The nobles, in their disgust, made common cause with
the refractory Parliament, and every day added to the bitter-
ness of an animosity which was shortly to burst forth into open
violence. In this singular contest, known in history as the War
of the Fronde, the leaders on both sides were ecclesiastics.
IMazarin dictated the councils of the Crown; while at the head
of the opposition was the turbulent De Retz, nephew and co-
adjutor to the Archbishop of Paris. Between these two digni-
taries there was a deep personal enmity. De Retz had on
many occasions thwarted and humbled the parvenu minister;
and the latter was keenly jealous of the influence enjoyed by
the coadjutor with the parochial clergy both in Paris and in the
provinces, who were thus encouraged in a spirit of disaffection
to the Government.
The religious disputes of the day kept pace with the political,
and were in great measure complicated with them. De Retz
was on familiar terms with Antoine Arnauld, and showed himself
an indulgent patron of Port Royal. In his administration of
the diocese (for his uncle was incapacitated by age) he favoured
the clergy of the Jansenist School; and they, in return, were
not ashamed, notwithstanding the prelate's scandalous irregu-
larities, to applaud his policy and enlist under his banners.”
Hence they gained the reputation, which however was scarcely
justified by the facts, of being implicated in all the factious
intrigues and rebellious enterprises of the Fronde.f The Jesuits,
on the other hand, were firm adherents of the Court and the
Cardinal-minister; and thus found themselves arrayed against
the Jansenists in civil partisanship, as well as in theological
controversy.
* “They forgave his depraved | IFontaine, tom. ii.
morals,” says Fontaine, “in considera- f The Duc de Luynes and the Che-
tion of his many excellent qualities, valier de Sevigné, two of the military
and his great anxiety to have persons leaders of the Frontle, were among the
of merit for his friends." Mémoires de most devoted friends of Port Royal.
A p. 1649. RIVALRY OF JANSENISTS AND MOLINISTs. 401
The strife arising from the “Augustinus’ now commenced
in earnest. Rival Jansenists and Molinists attacked each other
from the pulpit ; a stream of vehement pamphlets was poured
forth on both sides from the press; and it was clear that the
conflict was destined to engage all the energies and resources of
the keenest intellects of the time. The mysteries of predesti-
nation and free-will seemed to have acquired an almost magical
attraction; the younger students in divinity, yielding to the
irresistible impulse of party-spirit, gave themselves up to the in-
vestigation of these vexed questions in preference to all others.
On the 1st of July, 1649, Nicholas Cornet, at that time
Syndic of the Faculty of Theology at Paris, addressed a crowded
assemblage of doctors in the great hall of the Sorbonne. He
said that he had been induced, out of anxiety to preserve peace
in the Faculty, to sign several theses * in which it was evi-
dently sought to promulgate the new opinions. He had hoped
that such attempts might be suppressed by lenity; and had
therefore contented himself with adding to such theses what
he judged necessary to protect the truth from injury, and the
decrees of the Sorbonne from being violated. He found, however,
that his forbearance was abused, and his silence construed as an
approval of these heterodox motions. He therefore felt bound
in duty to bring the matter before the doctors as a body, that
they might adopt such steps as the circumstances seemed to
demand. One of the bachelors, whose thesis he had lately had
occasion to correct, had totally ignored the alterations made in
it, and maintained, in his public act, the terms in which it was
originally drawn. He had also caused it to be printed in a shape
differing from that which he (the Syndic) approved. Such in-
subordination was not to be endured. Respect for authority
must be enforced; and to this end he suggested that the
Sorbonne should record its judgment upon certain propositions
which he had drawn up, after mature consideration, as ex-
pressing the sum and substance of the views in question. He
proceeded to specify seven, which were afterwards reduced to
five, as follows.f
* Public exercises on various sub- # They stood thus in the original
jects of philosophy, theology, canon law, Latin:—
or arts, sustained by candidates for de- 1. “Aliqua Dei praecepta, hominibus
grees in the Universities. justis volentibus et conantibus, Secun-
WOL. I. - 2 D
402 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
1. “Certain commandments of God are impossible to just
persons even desiring and endeavouring to keep them, according
to the strength which they then possess; and such grace is
lacking to them as would render them possible.”
2. “In the state of fallen nature internal grace is never
resisted.”
3. “In order to merit and demerit in the state of fallen
nature, freedom from necessity is not required of man, but it
suffices that there be freedom from constraint.”
4. “The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of internal
prevenient grace for each separate act, and even for the begin-
ning of faith; their heresy consisted in this, that they con-
sidered that grace to be such as the will of man might either
resist or obey.” -
5. “It is a Semi-Pelagian error to say that Christ died or
shed His blood for all men absolutely.” -
A sharp discussion ensued upon the question whether these
propositions should be submitted to an official examination. It
was decided at length in the affirmative by a plurality of voices;
and a Committee was appointed to consider and report upon
them, the members of which, with only two exceptions, were
known to be hostile to Jansenius. *
It is to be observed that the Syndic neither named any
author, nor specified any work from which the propositions were
extracted. Indeed when one of the doctors remarked that the
intention was evidently to condemn Jansenius, Cornet replied
with warmth, “Non agitur de Jansenio.” Yet we know that in
the sequel these very propositions were continually referred to
as containing the pith and marrow of the Jansenist heresy, and
that they were anathematized as such by the Apostolic See.
The Jansenists took the alarm at once, and put forth several
dium praesentes quas habent wires, sunt
impossibilia; deest quoque iis gratia
quà possibilia fiant.” -
2. “Interiori gratiae in statu naturae
lapsae nunquam resistitur.”
3. “Ad merendum et demerendum
in slatu naturae lapsae non requiritur in
homine libertas a necessitate, sed suf-
ficit libertas a coactione.”
4. “Semi-Pelagiani admittebant prae-
veilientis gratiae interioris necessitatem
ad singulos actus, etiam ad initium
fidei; et in hóc erant haeretici, quod
vellent eam gratiam talem esse cui
posset humana voluntas resistere wel
obtemperare.”
5. “Semi-Pelagianorum error est
dicere Christum pro omnibus omninó
hominibus mortuum esse auf sanguinem
fudisse.” -
* Journal de Saint Amour, Part i.
chap. 6.
An 1849. THE FIVE PROPOSITIONS. 403
pamphlets in which the tactics of their opponents were un-
sparingly criticised. The most forcible of these, entitled ‘Con-
siderations sur l'enterprise de Maitre Nicolas Cornet, Syndic de
la Faculté, was by Antoine Arnauld; * who maintained that
the propositions were mere fabrications, and that such opinions
had never in fact been held or taught by any one. They were
drawn up, he declared, in language so ambiguous, that they
might be interpreted at pleasure either in a heretical or in an
Orthodox sense. Moreover, the Syndic and his friends had
violated the rules of the Sorbonne by denouncing the proposi-
tions without mentioning the name of the author, or the works
from which they were quoted. It was manifest, he contended,
that their object was to cast discredit on the teaching of St.
Augustine; several of them having already expressed their
dissent in many particulars from that Father's views.
Meanwhile a strong minority of the doctors, headed by
Louis de St. Amour, signed an “appel comme d'abus” to the
Parliament against the proceedings of the Theological Faculty.
They entrusted it for presentation to Broussel, a highly popular
magistrate, the same whose arrest, in August, 1648, had given
the signal for the outbreak against Mazarin and the Govern-
ment. Thus early commenced the alliance, intelligible and
natural under the circumstances, between the Jansemists and
the party of political disaffection. *
The appeal was duly admitted, but on the suggestion of the
First President, Mathieu Molé, it was arranged that no further
action should be taken for three or four months ensuing ; in the
hope that during that interval an accommodation might be
agreed to, and peace restored. The truce, however, was ill
observed by the Molinists. About the middle of September a
document was circulated in Paris purporting to be a censure
passed by the Committee of Doctors on the five Propositions,
and signed by eight out of the ten members who composed it.f
Upon this St. Amour and his supporters again appealed to the
law courts. The parties were summoned before the “chambre
des vacations” on the 5th of October, and Cornet and his friends
* CEuvres d'Armauld, tom. xix. 4to. † This paper is given at length,
I778. under the title of ‘Propositiones Bac-
i D'Avrigny, Mein. Chromolog., tom. calaureorum,' by Gerberon, Hist, du
ii. p. 197. Jansenisme, tom. i. p. 312.
2 D 2
404 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
protested that the circular complained of had been published
without their knowledge or consent. The presiding judge now
made another attempt to effect a reconciliation; but finding it
impracticable, he ordered the appeal to be heard at the first
sitting of the Courts in November, and meanwhile forbade the
parties to publish anything whatever on the subject, or agitate
the question directly or indirectly.
The opponents of Jansenius now changed their plan of
operations. From the temper manifested by the Parliament,
the threatening aspect of public affairs, and the wide-spread
prejudice against the Jesuits, there was reason to apprehend
that the attempt to obtain a censure of the propositions from
the Sorbonne would have been defeated. They therefore
abandoned that project; contenting themselves with reminding
the Faculty that it had already passed decrees upon the subject,
and that nothing more was needed than that the Syndic should
enforce their execution. The surreptitious form of censure,
however, which Cornet and his colleagues had disavowed before
the magistrates, was transmitted to Rome, where it was dealt
with as if it had been a genuine act of the Sorbonne. Commis-
sioners were named to examine it, and it seems that their
report would have confirmed it, but for the opposition of one of
them, the Cardinal de St. Clément, a Dominican.* The anti-
pathy of the Dominicans to the Jesuits had been much inten-
sified since the appearance of the famous work of Molina, which
they regarded as an audacious attack upon the authority of St.
Augustine and the doctrine of efficacious grace. The Pope
accordingly abstained from giving a decision.
In the next stage of the contest the initiative was taken by
the prelates of France;—a large body of whom appealed to the
Pope for the purpose of prevailing on his Holiness to deliver an
authoritative judgment on the merits of the Five Propositions.
Their joint letter was drawn up by Habert Bishop of Vabres
(the same who in 1643 had denounced the ‘Augustinus’ from
the pulpit of Notre Dame), and is said to have been cordially
approved by Vincent de Paul.f The document, which bore
* Gerberon, Hist, du Jansenisme, sequence he is bitterly reviled by the
tom. i. p. 330. Jansenist historian Gerberon. “Fron-
t Vincent de Paul exerted himself deur aussi ignorant que zélé”—“de-
zealously in persuading the bishops to vot ignorant”—“demi-Pelagien "-are
affix their names to the letter. In con- among the epithets bestowed on him.
A.D. 1649. THE BISHOPS APPEAL TO THE POPE. 405
the signature of eighty-five bishops, possesses so much historic
interest, that a translation of it is here presented to the reader.
“It is an established usage of the Church, most holy Father,
that the greater causes shall be referred to the Apostolic See;
and the faith of Peter, which can never fail, demands that this
usage be for ever continued as a matter of right. In obedience
to So just a law, we deem it necessary to address your Holiness
upon an affair of the gravest importance to religion. For ten
years past we have seen with much grief France agitated by
violent Contentions on account of the posthumous work of the
reverend Cornelius Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, and the doctrine
therein contained. These commotions ought indeed to have
been suppressed as well by the authority of the Council of
Trent as by that of the bull of Urban VIII., of happy memory,
by which that Pontiff condemned the dogmas of Jansenius, and
confirmed the decrees of Pius W. and Gregory XIII. against
Baius. Your Holiness has established, by a fresh decree, the
truth and the force of the bull; but because each individual
proposition was not branded by a special censure, it has appeared
to certain persons that room was still left for subterfuge and
evasion. Such resources will, we believe, be altogether cut off,
if it shall please your Holiness, according to this our petition,
to pronounce clearly and definitely what sentiments are to be
held upon this subject. With this view, we implore your Holi-
ness to undertake the examination of the following propositions,
the discussion of which is the chief source of the alarming
excitement now prevailing, and to deliver a distinct judgment
upon each of them.”
Here follow the Five Propositions, the text of which has been
already given. The bishops continue:–“ Your Holiness has
had recent proof of the efficacy which attends the authoritative
decisions of the Apostolic See, in the overthrow of the error of
the double head of the Church. The storm ceased immediately;
the winds and waves submitted to the voice and command of
Jesus Christ. For which reason we entreat you, most holy
IFather, to publish a decisive judgment on the aforesaid pro-
positions;–a judgment to which the reverend Jansenius him-
self, when at the point of death, expressly submitted his work;
and by this means to dispel all obscurity, to re-assure wavering
minds, to avert divisions, and to restore to the Church her peace
406 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
and her prosperity. While cherishing this anticipation, we
address our desires and prayers to God, that the immortal King
may bless your Holiness with long and happy years, and in the
end with a glorious eternity.” "
Exception was taken to this proceeding by a portion of the
French clergy, first, on the ground that the signatures had been
obtained by underhand and unfair means; and secondly, as
interfering with the right of the episcopate to take cognizance,
in the first instance, of the greater ecclesiastical causes, pre-
viously to any application to Rome. The Archbishop of Embrun,
with some of his brethren, waited on the Nuncio to inform him
that they disapproved the step, and that it must not be con-
sidered the collective act of the clergy of France. They like-
wise presented a counter-address to the Pope, setting forth at
considerable length their view of the affair. The Five Proposi-
tions, they observed, being ambiguously worded, could not but
engender disputes full of animosity, from the conflicting inter-
pretations which must inevitably be applied to them. There
were, moreover, other reasons for thinking that the present was
not a favourable moment for determining the questions of grace
and predestination—beset as they were with difficulties, and
never agitated without violent contests. In such a case the
order of the Church Universal, combined with the customs
received in the National Church of France, ought to be scrupu-
lously observed; and to this end the case ought to be brought
in the first instance before the council of bishops, according to
various precedents, which they cited, both ancient and modern.
Had this course been taken, it would have been the duty of
the bishops to examine whether the propositions had not been
fabricated in Order to stigmatize certain individuals, and excite
commotion; to ascertain in what place, by what writers, and
in what sense, they had been advanced; to distinguish their real
meaning from the false; to inquire closely into all that had
passed upon the subject since the dispute commenced; to give
a full and impartial hearing to all parties in the case; and after
all this, to make known to his Holiness the result of their
investigation. Whereas the measure adopted by their colleagues
left an opening for artifice, for calumny, for misrepresentation,
* Mémoires du Clergé de JFrance, tom. i. p. 223.
A.D. 1651. THE PROPOSITIONS EXAMINED AT ROME. 407
for deception, which might lead to consequences deeply pre-
judicial to the cause of truth. They therefore implored the
holy Father either to permit this grave controversy, which had
already lasted several centuries without impairing Catholic
unity, to remain still longer undecided, or to determine the
questions submitted to him in accordance with the prescriptive
rules of ecclesiastical discipline. This letter was signed by the
Archbishop of Sens (Louis Henri de Gondrin), and by the Bishops
of Orleans, Chalons, Lescar, Agen, Comminges, Amiens, Angers,
Beauvais, and St. Papoul.”
The request of the eighty-five prelates could hardly be disre-
garded by the Pope; who accordingly appointed a commission
of six cardinals to proceed to the examination of the proposi-
tions. The commissioners met for the first time on the 20th of
April, 1651, under the presidency of Cardinal Roma, Dean
of the Sacred College; but their sittings were not held regu-
larly till the spring of the year following. Each party in the
cause deputed certain divines as its agents and advocates at
the Papal Court on this occasion. These were, on the side of the
eighty-five prelates, whom we may call the appellants, MM.
Hallier (who had recently succeeded Cornet as Syndic of the
Sorbonne), Legault, and Joysel; on the opposite side, Gorin de
Saint Amour (who has left a very interesting chronicle of the
events of his mission f), La Lanne, Abbot of Valcroissant, and
afterwards the celebrated Father DeSmares of the Oratory. *
A discussion arose at the outset as to the method in which
the inquiry should be conducted. The Jansenists desired to
have the matter at issue argued by public disputation between
themselves and their opponents, as the best means of ascer-
taining what was really maintained on each side, and fixing the
precise sense of the propositions, which they affirmed to be
equivocal. This demand was resisted by the Jesuits; and they
succeeded in inducing the Pope and Cardinals to adopt the course
which they preferred. The respondents, indeed, had an exceed-
ingly difficult part to play. The Pope received them graciously,
and assured them that whatever might be the final decision, it
* Journal de St. Amour, Part iii. on the Index by the authorities of the
chap. 1. D'Avrigny, Mémoires, tom. ii. Inquisition, and the French Govern-
p. 232. ment ordered it to be publicly burnt by
f St. Amour's “Journal’ was placed the bangman.
408 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
would by no means militate against the teaching either of
St. Augustine or St. Thomas Aquinas as to the efficaciousness
of grace. Nevertheless, it was plain that the curia was
strongly prejudiced against them. They strove to organize
a friendly party among the religious Orders, especially the
Augustinians and Dominicans; urging that a conspiracy had
been formed to subvert the vital doctrine of efficacious grace,
and that all who were anxious to preserve it ought to join heart
and hand forthwith with the defenders of Jansenius. To some
extent this attempt was successful; several Dominicans Sup-
ported the Jansenist cause in the meetings of the Congregation,
and pronounced in favour of the Propositions when the suffrages
were collected. Others, however, having been re-assured upon
the point which had caused alarm, voted for a condemnation. A
complaint was raised, again, and with some reason, against the
composition of the commission. It consisted, as finally arranged,
of five cardinals and thirteen “consulters” or assessors, chosen
from the most eminent theologians of the monastic orders.
Two of these, Modeste, a Franciscan, and Pallavicini, a Jesuit,
had declared themselves decidedly opposed to the “Augustinus.’
The Jansenist deputies objected in consequence to their sitting
on the commission, and also to the presence of Cardinal Albizzi,
who acted as secretary; but their appeal was disregarded.
Other vexatious obstacles were thrown in their way; but the
chief grievance was the determined refusal to confront them
publicly with their antagonists, for the purpose of elucidating
those terms and phrases in the controversy which (according to
the Jansenists) were of dubious import.
The judicial investigation was conducted with laudable zeal
and energy. Twenty sessions were held between the 1st of
October, 1652, and the 20th of January, 1653; five of which
were devoted to the consideration of the first Proposition, four
to the second, four to the third, three to the fourth, and four to
the fifth. The meetings took place latterly, by the Pope's
express desire, in his own presence. His Holiness, notwith-
standing his great age, attended ten sittings, each of four hours'
duration, and spared no pains to make himself master of the
intricate technicalities of the question in debate.
On the 19th of May, 1653, the Jansenist deputies were
received in Solemn audience by Pope Innocent and the whole
A.D. 1663. DISCUSSION ON THE PROPOSITIONS. 409
Congregation. La Lanne and Desmares harangued them for
several hours; the latter exhibiting on the occasion all the
qualities of a consummate orator. They founded their argument
specially on a document which became known as the ‘Ecrit à
trois colonnes;” in which they had drawn up side by side three
different interpretations of the Five Propositions. The first
column contained the Calvinist sense, which all Catholics
agreed in repudiating; the second gave the view which the
Jansenists maintained to be the legitimate, orthodox, and true
one ; the third exhibited the so-called Molinist or Semi-Pelagian
version, which was attributed to the Jesuits. By dint of much
ingenious extenuation, many fine-drawn distinctions, and no
small distortion of the plain meaning of words, the advocates
of Jansenius modified the harshness of the text of the Proposi-
tions, and showed that they might be so construed as to exclude
the necessitarian theory. But they made no real impression
upon the minds of their judges. It was nothing to the purpose
to urge that the Propositions were susceptible of a non-natural
signification, differing from that which appeared upon their
surface. The Pope was not called upon to decide whether they
were capable of being understood in a Calvinist, a Jansenist, or
a Molinist sense; but whether, taken in their obvious, gram-
matical, and literal acceptation, they were or were not agreeable
to the Catholic faith. -
The Jansenists relied with unbounded confidence on the
identity of doctrinal teaching (which, according to them, was
complete and indisputable) between Jansenius and St. Augustine.
If they could establish this, nothing more was needed, they con-
ceived, in order to make victory secure. Yet St. Augustine,
however brilliant the prestige attaching to his name, was not in-
fallible;—so far from it, that sentiments of a conflicting tendency,
and scarcely capable of reconciliation, may be gathered, as has
been already noticed, from different parts of his voluminous
writings. Under such circumstances, it is manifest that the
Church was not bound to accept a theological statement or a
metaphysical theory merely because it might be supported by
sporadic quotations from the works of St. Augustine. The
* See this document—“ Brevissima sus distinctio”—in D'Argentré, Collect.
Quinque Propositionum in varios sen- Judic, tom. iii. p. 263.
410 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XI.
Church, it need scarcely be said, had never adopted any indi-
vidual theologian as her exclusive oracle. Augustine had
defended certain broad, general principles on the subject of
Divine grace, with regard to which he was justly honoured
throughout Christendom as a pillar of Orthodoxy; but he had
also hazarded speculations upon other matters—matters of
abstruse detail—as to some of which no authoritative judgment
had been pronounced at all, while there were instances in which
the voice of authority had been adverse to Augustine. The
extent to which the Church had accepted him as the exponent
of her mind had been distinctly indicated by the Council of
Trent; so that it was vain to imagine that the Pope could
sanction any tenets propounded in his name which were at
variance with the Tridentine definitions. * *
That the Propositions were opposed to the decrees of Trent is
at once apparent on comparing them with Chapters W.-XIII.
of the VI*. Session of that Council. Hence the Pope and his
Congregation were fully warranted in declaring that they did
not represent the real views of St. Augustine; inasmuch as the
Church had determined, in and by those very decrees, the true
sense in which that Father was to be understood by Catholics.
Thus it was quite possible to convict the bishop of Ypres of false
doctrine without thereby inflicting any similar stigma upon the
Bishop of Hippo;-a contingency which, singularly enough,
seems never to have entered into the calculations of La Lanne
and his associates. Their chief anxiety, according to their own
account, was, not so much to prevent the Propositions from being
condemned, for they acknowledged that in a certain sense they
deserved condemnation; but to prevent their being condemned
in such a sense as would involve a censure of St. Augustine, or
(what in their view was the same thing) of Jansenius. They
insisted that the Propositions, rightly interpreted, were orthodox;
taken in a different sense, they admitted them to be heretical,
but they denied that this latter construction was the true one.
Such special pleading would go far to preclude the condemnation
of doctrinal error in any shape whatever; for few statements are
so hopelessly heterodox as to be incapable of being transformed,
under a process of dexterous manipulation, into comparative
harmlessness. The position that “certain precepts of the Divine
law cannot possibly be fulfilled by Christians, though they may
A.D. 1653. GROUNDS OF THE DECISION. 411
desire and endeavour to do so,” is one which shocks the first
instincts of a religious mind; and the idea, thus expressed, is
inevitably rejected as false. Such language may perhaps be
explained ; but only by explaining it away. The same may
be said of the dogma that “man never resists internal grace”—
that “actions may be meritorious, or the contrary, even when they
are done under necessity”—and that “our Saviour did not shed
His blood for all mankind.” Thus coarsely enunciated, they, as
it were, refute themselves, and are clearly untenable. Augustine,
very possibly, may have given apparent countenance to similar
opinions, especially in some of his earlier works; but his language
is guarded and measured, if not ambiguous;* whereas the con-
clusions drawn by Jansenius were indiscreet and violent in the
extreme. This fact had a decisive bearing upon the ultimate
judgment at Rome. The Pope and his advisers drew a line of
separation, sharply and strongly, between Jansenius and St.
Augustine. The disciple they branded with heresy; but the
credit and fame of the master—so immemorially cherished
throughout the Christian world—were left altogether intact.
* The following passage, so often
referred to by Jansenius and his par-
tisans, was greatly overstrained by
them, if not altogether misinterpreted.
“Ad hoc Valet quod scriptum est, si
volueris, conservabis mandata; ut homo
qui voluerit et non potuerit, nondum Se
plenë velle cognoscat, et oret ut habeat
tantam voluntatem quanta sufficit ad
implenda mandata. Sic quippe adju-
Vatur ut faciat quod jubetur. . . . Non
juberet Deus quod Sciret non posse ab
homine fieri. Quis hoc nesciat? Sed
ideð jubet aliqua quae non possumus,
ut noverinus quid ab illo petere de-
beamus. Ipsa est enim fides, quae
orando impetrat quod lex imperat.”
Aug. De Grat. et Lib. Arbitr., capp. 15,
16. Upon this Jansenius comments
as follows:—“Nihil est in doctriná.
Sancti Augustini certius et fundatius,
quam esse praecepta quædam quae ho-
minibus non tantium infidelibus, excac-
catis, obduratis, Sed fidelibus quoque et
justis, volentibus, et conantibus Secun-
dum praesentes quas habent wires, sunt
impossibilia; deesse quoque gratiam
quà fiant possibilia.” (Jansen. “Augus-
tin.’, tom. iii. Lib. iii. cap. 13.) And
again; “Cum plurimi non petant gra-
tiam illam quâ, possint ac sufficiant
praecepta facere; vel non ita petant ut
ad impetrandum necessarium est; mec
Omnibus gratiam vel ferventer petendi,
vel Omnino petendi Deus largiatur,
apertissimum est multis fidelibus deesse
illam sufficientem gratiam, et conse-
quenter illam perpetuam, quam qui-
dam praedicant, faciendi praecepti facul-
tatem.” (Ib. circa finem.) Such state-
ments prove pretty clearly, on the one
hand, that the Five Propositions were
really held by Jansenius; while, on
the other, they make it questionable
whether Jansenius can be taken as
a faithful exponent of the mind of
St. Augustine.
412 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XII.
C EIA PT E R XII.
THE decision was finally taken on the eve of Whitsunday, the
31st of May, 1653; and eight days afterwards the bull “Cum
occasione” was promulgated at Rome with the customary
formalities. “Whereas” (such is its tenor), “on the occasion
of the printing of a work entitled the Augustinus of Cornelius
Jansenius, Bishop of Ypres, among other opinions of that author
a controversy arose, principally in France, respecting five of
them ; many of the Gallican bishops pressed us to enter into an
examination of the said contested opinions, and to pronounce a
definite judgment concerning each of them. We, who amid the
manifold cares which continually trouble our mind, are anxious
above all things that the Church of God committed to us may
be delivered from permicious errors which threaten its safety, and,
like a ship on a tranquil sea, may pursue its course peacefully,
and attain the wished-for haven of salvation; considering the
importance of the case, have caused the aforesaid propositions to
be diligently examined, one by one, by several learned doctors
in theology, in the presence of certain Cardinals of the holy
Roman Church, specially and frequently assembled for that
purpose. We have maturely reviewed their suffrages, given
both vivá voce and in writing, and have heard the said doctors
discourse at length upon the propositions, and on each one of
them separately; many congregations having been held in Our
presence. From the commencement of these discussions we
directed prayers, both public and private, to be offered for the
Divine assistance, and have latterly caused them to be renewed
with increased fervour. At length, by the favour and guidance
of the Holy Spirit, we have arrived at the following declaration
and definition.
“As to the first of these propositions, “Certain commandments
of God are impossible to just persons who desire and endeavour
to obey them, as regards the strength they then possess, and
such grace is denied them as would enable them to perform
A.D. 1653. TEIE BULL “CUM OCCASIONE.” 413
them; we declare it to be rash, impious, blasphemous, heretical,
and as such we condemn it.
“The second, “In the state of corrupt nature internal grace is
never resisted’—we declare heretical, and condemn it as such.
“The third—“In order to merit and demerit in the state
of fallen nature, there is no need of liberty exempt from neces-
sity, but freedom from actual compulsion is sufficient’—we
declare heretical, and as such we condemn it.
“The fourth—“The Semi-Pelagians admitted the necessity of
internal and prevenient grace for every action in particular,
even for the first beginning of faith; their heresy consisted in
maintaining that this grace is such that man's will can either
resist it or obey it’—we declare to be false and heretical, and
as such we condemn it.
“The fifth–It is a Semi-Pelagian error to say that Jesus
Christ died, or shed His blood, for all men without exception'
—we declare to be false, rash, scandalous; and if understood
in the sense that Christ died for the predestined only, we
declare it impious, blasphemous, derogatory to the goodness of
God, heretical, and as such we condemn it.
“In consequence, the faithful of both sexes are forbidden,
under all the pains and penalties denounced against heretics
and their abettors, to believe, teach, or preach concerning the
said propositions otherwise than the present constitution directs;
and the diocesan ordinaries are enjoined to put the laws of
ecclesiastical discipline in force against all offenders.” To guard
against misconception, the Bull states in conclusion that the
condemnation of these particular errors is not to be taken as
conveying by implication any approval of other opinions con-
tained in the writings of Jansenius.
When St. Amour and his colleagues presented themselves to
take leave, the Pope complimented them warmly on the learn-
ing, eloquence, and ability they had shown in the discharge of
their duty; and repeated the assurance that the Bull was not to
be understood as contravening or disparaging in any degree the
doctrine of St. Augustine, which was and would always be that
of the Holy See and of the Church.” But his Holiness was far
* Racine, Hist, de Port Royal, p. 72. Journal de Saint Amour, Pt. vi. chap,
28.
414 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XII.
from intending to affirm (though the Jansenists thought proper
to interpret his words to that effect) that every sentiment ex-
pressed by Augustine on the deep mysteries of grace was to be
regarded as forming part of the infallible tradition of the
Church Catholic.
Copies of the Bull were immediately despatched to France,
accompanied by briefs to the Queen Regent, to the King, to
Cardinal Mazarin, and to the bishops, exhorting them to cause
it to be published and duly executed. A royal edict for that
purpose was issued accordingly to the prelates of the kingdom
on the 4th of July; and on the 11th, those who were in Paris
assembled at the Louvre to the number of thirty, three of whom,
the Bishops of Valence, Chalons and Grasse, were among the
signers of the letter to the Pope in deprecation of the late pro-
ceedings. After a speech from Mazarin, the Bull was accepted,
though not altogether without objection ; and the bishops drew
up a letter to the Pope, expressing the satisfaction and gratitude
with which the Gallican Church welcomed the important step
taken by his Holiness.” The questions lately agitated, they
observed, were of the deepest moment; vital doctrines were at
stake; that of the ineffable love which the Redeemer bears
to the whole race of man; that of the work of Salvation,
effected as it is co-ordinately by the aid of Divine grace and by
the free action of the human will, Supernaturally aroused and
sustained. These truths had been obscured by the rash lucubra-
tions of Jansenius; but his Holiness had re-established them in
all their former lustre by the decree which he had just pro-
nounced at the desire of the bishops of France, in conformity
with the ancient rule of faith derived from Scripture and the
tradition of the Fathers. In like manner as Pope Innocent I.
had co.,demned the heresy of Pelagius upon the report sub-
mitted him by the bishops of Africa, so had Innocent X.
denounced heresy in its opposite extreme on the application of
the Gallican episcopate. And as the Church of the fifth century
unanimously adhered to the judgment of the Sovereign Pontiff
of that day, relying not only on the promises made by Christ to
St. Peter, but on the acts of preceding Popes, such as those of
* Mémoires du Clergé de I’rance, tom. i. p. 235. D Avrigny, Mem. Chro-
nolog., tom. ii. p. 268.
A.D. 1653. RECEPTION OF THE BULL IN FRANCE. 415
Damasus in condemnation of Apollinarius and Macedonius; so
his Holiness might be assured that in the present instance, the
same supreme authority having been exerted, it would be
regarded by the whole Church with the same unqualified re-
spect. Since in this cause the earthly monarch might be said
(in the language of Sixtus III.) to be confederate with the King
of heaven, there could be no question that the new heresy would
be crushed against the immovable Rock, and would be finally
destroyed. e
The same prelates addressed a circular letter to their
brethren, together with a form of mandement, which they
recommended for adoption and publication in every diocese.
The bishops in general accepted this recommendation; but some
few judged it advisable to explain that the bull—in the terms
of which they cordially concurred—was not designed to affect
in any measure the doctrine of St. Augustine concerning
efficacious grace. Foremost among those who took this course
was Gondrin, Archbishop of Sens, a well-known partisan of
the Jansenists; he was followed by Henry Arnauld, Bishop
of Angers (a brother of the great Antoine), and by the Bishops of
Beauvais, Orleans, and Comminges.*
The Sorbonne, on the motion of the Bishop of Rennes, re-
gistered the Pope's constitution without opposition; and it was
ordered that any member of the Faculty who might thence-
forward maintain publicly either of the condemned Propositions
should be expelled from the Society, and his name be erased
from the list of doctors. Corresponding measures were adopted
by the provincial Universities, and by most of the religious com-
munities. The bull was likewise accepted without hesitation in
Flanders, and even by the University of Louvain, the very
cradle of Jansenist theology. -
It must be borne in mind that the posture of politicºl affairs
at this moment was unfavourable to the Jansenists. The faction
of the Fronde—with which, whether justly or unjustly, they had
been identified from the beginning of the civil troubles—had
recently made its submission to the Government. Mazarin had
returned triumphantly from exile; his bitter enemy, De Retz,
* D’Avrigny, Mém. Chromolog., tom. ii. p. 277. I'llies-Dupin, Hist. Eccles.
du XVII. Siècle, tom, ii. Histoire de Port Royal, Part ii. Liv. xi.
416 THE GALLICAN CHURCH, Char. XII.
who was generally looked upon as the most powerful patron of
Port Royal, had been outmanoeuvred by the Court, and was a
prisoner in the chateau of Vincennes. The minister, in this full
tide of popularity, found no difficulty in carrying out a rigorous
line of policy against the defenders of the ‘Augustinus,’
damaged and discredited as they were already in public opinion.
The questions in dispute, in their purely theological character,
were to Mazarin matters of Supreme indifference; but it was his
interest to conciliate the Pope, who had expressed strongly his
displeasure at the imprisonment of De Retz, and the attempts
made to extort from him a resignation of his see; while the pre-
servation of his ascendency at court was an object still nearer to
his heart. He saw that both purposes might be served at once
by gratifying the Jesuits; and accordingly the subtle Italian lent
himself willingly to the designs of the party which for the time
was in the stronger position. The heads of the French Church
acquiesced with more or less alacrity; and whereas the bull
“In eminenti” had been the subject of endless cavils, the bull
“Cúm occasione” was approved almost unanimously through-
out the kingdom.
The pastoral of the Archbishop of Sens was forwarded by the
nuncio at Paris to Rome, where it excited grave animadversion;
for the writer had enunciated in strong terms the obnoxious
Gallican maxim, that the right of judging in the first instance
in causes ecclesiastical belongs to the diocesan episcopate. The
Pope threatened the Archbishop with excommunication; but
contented himself afterwards with naming a commission of
bishops to adjudicate in his stead. The Commissioners (or
rather the Nuncio and Mazarin, who took the matter into their
own hands) endeavoured to obtain satisfaction from the Arch-
bishop in the shape of a letter disavowing the doctrines of his
pastoral. This he declined; but consented, after much nego-
ciation, to write to the Pope signifying in general terms his
adhesion to the late constitution, avoiding, however, any pre-
cise definition of the Sense which he attached to the condemnation
of the Five Propositions.” This ultimatum in the way of conces-
sion was tacitly accepted, and no further proceedings were taken
in the case. -
* This arrangement was due to the good offices of Pierre de Marca, then
Archbishop of Toulouse. -
A.D. 1654. EWASIVE SYSTEM OF THE JANSENISTS. 417
Notwithstanding the universal profession of readiness to
bow to the judgment of the Sovereign Pontiff, the excitement
connected with Jansenius and his work was by no means
destined to subside. At the point which we have now reached
the controversy entered upon a new phase; and henceforward
the course pursued by the Jansenists does little credit to their
reputation for honesty and candour. The bull “Cúm occa-
sione” was manifestly intended to condemn certain opinions
published and maintained by the late Bishop of Ypres. The
‘Augustinus’ was the sole subject-matter of the controversy;
the application to Róme had been made for the express pur-
pose of obtaining a definite judgment on its contents; and the
whole drift of the judicial investigation tended towards this
end. The bull, however, did not declare that the condemned
propositions were cited, totidem verbis, from the ‘Augustinus;’
while on the other hand the Pope had privately stated that
the censure by no means applied to the doctrine of efficacious
grace,” nor to any other part of the teaching of St. Augustine.
From these two facts, the Jansenists proceeded to extract a
system of evasive self-justification. They admitted that the
Five Propositions were justly condemned; but they contended
that Jansenius had never held such opinions; that no such
statements were to be found in his work; that his doctrine on
the points in question was identical with that of St. Augustine,
which was confessedly unimpeached and unimpeachable; and
that in consequence the l’ontifical sentence was no more a
condemnation of the Bishop of Ypres than of the Bishop of
Hippo. The sense in which the Propositions were declared
heretical, they insisted, was not that of Jansenius, but one falsely
imputed to him, altogether misrepresenting his sentiments.
His real belief had been explained at length by those who
lately advocated his cause at Rome. It was that of an Orthodox
* Both Molinists and Jansenists its subjects. The Jansenists main-
alike professed to hold this doctrine,
which rested too firmly on the authority
of the primitive Church to be denied in
terms by any Catholic divine. The
point at issue between them was
Whether the efficacy of grace is exclu-
Sively inherent in its own essence, or
whether it is efficacious only in con-
junction with the will of those who are
VOT. T.
tained the former to be the doctrine of
St. Augustine and of all antiquity;
the Molinists contended for the latter
interpretation. The bull “Cum occa-
Sione * did not touch this controversy.
All that it really decided was that the
doctrine of Jansenius was not that of
St. Augustine.
2
IC
4.18 - THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XII.
Catholic, equally far removed from the heresy of Calvin on the
one side and from the Semi-Pelagianism of Molina on the other.
Such was the purport of three treatises from the pen of
Antoine Arnauld “ (printed, however, without his name), in
reply to one entitled ‘Cavilli Jansenianorum,' by Father Annat,
the Jesuit confessor of Louis XIV. The bishops, who saw that
if this sophistical line of defence were allowed to pass un-
challenged the Pope's bull would become utterly illusory, forth-
with held a meeting, and appointed a committee to examine
whether the Five Propositions existed textually in the work of
Jansenius. After careful investigation, they reported, on the
26th of March, 1654, that the Propositions were indubitably
contained in the ‘Augustinus;’ that the Pope had condemned
them as having been advanced by Jansenius, and in the Sense
intended by that author; that the said Propositions follow of
necessity from the dogma that all grace which gives the power
to act rightly is invariably efficacious; and that this being
notoriously the doctrine of Jansenius, the condemned heresies
must, by the very force of the terms, be referred to him. The
report pointed out, further, that the Jansenists were without
warrant in asserting that their doctrine was identical with that
of St. Augustine; that Augustine, rightly understood, was in
accordance with the late Papal constitution, and opposed to the
opinions of Jansenius. Augustine, undoubtedly, had taught,
with regard to the subjects in dispute, what appertained to the
Rule of Faith; but he had taught, in addition, other things
which were not of faith, and which had been left undecided by
Pope Celestine. Now, it was the misfortune of Jansenius that
the opinions contained in the Five Propositions were not among
those which the Church had classed as open questions, but among
those which were contrary to the primitive Rule of Faith—
that faith which Augustine had so triumphantly defended. No
Catholic writer pf an earlier date than Baius had ever inter-
preted Augustine in the sense advocated by Jansenius; and
Baius, as all the world knew, had been condemned for that
very reason by Popes Gregory XIII. and Pius V. In conclu-
* 1. ‘Reponse au Père Annat tou- positions sur la véritable doctrine de
chant les V. Propositions.” 2. ‘Mé- S. Augustin.’ 3. ‘Eclaircissement de
moire Sur le dessein des Jesuites de quelques nouvelles objections sur le
faire retomber la censure des V. Pro- Fait de Jansenius.'
A.D. 1654. REPORT OF THE ASSEMBLY OF CLERGY. 419
Sion, the Report referred to the Council of Trent, whose decrees
had fixed definitively the true meaning of that great and
Saintly Doctor of the Church, whom commentators so grossly
misrepresented.*
This report was opposed at first by the Archbishop of Sens
and other prelates; but eventually they agreed to it, with
certain reservations, out of consideration for their brethren
and for the sake of peace. It was forwarded to Rome, and was
received by the Pope with lively expressions of gratitude. His
Holiness replied in a brief addressed to the General Assembly
of the French clergy, in which he stated that he had con-
demned by his bull “the doctrine of Cornelius Jansenius, as
contained in his work entitled ‘Augustinus.’” By the same
brief he exhorted the clergy to execute a decree which he had
recently issued, proscribing no less than forty different publi-
cations in defence of Jansenius. The list included Antoine
Arnauld's two ‘Apologies’ for that prelate; the famous ‘Ecrit.
à trois colonnes; a treatise, ‘De la Grace victorieuse,’ by the
Abbé de la Lanne; the pastoral letters of the Archbishop of
Sens and the Bishop of Comminges; and the ‘Catéchisme de la
Grace,’ attributed to a doctor of the Sorbonne named Feydeau.
These were among the last acts of the pontificate of Inno-
cent X. He expired on the 7th of January, 1655, and was
succeeded by Cardinal Chigi, who assumed the name of Alex-
ander VII.
Mazarin, without waiting for the regular session of the
General Assembly, called the bishops together at the Louvre
in May, 1655, and persuaded them not only to receive the late
brief of Pope Innocent, but also to send a circular letter to
their colleagues, urging them to cause the bull “Cúm occasione,”
together with the brief of September, 1654, to be subscribed by
the clergy of all ranks throughout the kingdom, including the
rectors of Universities and all persons holding public office in
the Church, under pain of being proceeded against as heretics.i
Such was the first mention of this ill-advised measure, the
ulterior results of which were so fraught with disaster to the
Church of France.
* Memoires du Clergé de France, F., tom. iv. ‘Piéces justificatives, No. v.
tom. i. p. 202, et seqq. Procès-Ver- # Mémoires du Clergé de France,
baux, des Assemblées Générales du Cl. de tom. i. p. 265.
2 E 2
I
E
420 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XII.
It might have been reasonably hoped that, since Rome had
now spoken in a tone of authority which none could mistake or
dispute, both parties in the strife would be content to lay down
their arms and proclaim peace; that the victors would have
deemed it wise to triumph with moderation ; and that the
vanquished, on their part, would have exhibited a spirit of
frank and cordial submission. Events, however, turned out
very differently. The Jansenists, while professing to abjure ex
animo the five heretical Propositions, persisted in their theory
that, notwithstanding the recent proceedings, the doctrine of
Jansenius was not in reality condemned. The dominant majority,
on the other hand, abused their success; they pressed the Papal
judgment to unwarrantable lengths, and converted it into an in-
strument of persecution. The stigma of heresy was now inflicted
without mercy upon all who were known to sympathise in any
measure with Jansenius; and the Scourge was applied with
special rigour to Port Royal, upon which ill-fated community
the Jesuits resolved to wreak their malice to the uttermost.
Port Royal was at this time in the meridian of its fame
and prosperity. The Abbess Angélique had returned, in
May, 1648, to the original cloister in the valley of Chevreuse,
where the community over which she presided seldom num-
bered less than a hundred, including novices and postulants.
Singlin still filled the office of Director, assisted by Isaac de
Sacy, one of the nephews of Antoine Arnauld. Pierre Nicole,
Claude Lancelot, Sebastian Tillemont, were prosecuting their
learned labours at Les Granges, a farmhouse which overlooked
the monastery. The Duc de Luynes, son of the Constable, was
installed in a modest mansion, the Château de Vaumurier, in
close proximity to the abbey, where he led a life of pious and
studious seclusion. It was at this period, too, that the Port
Royalists received an illustrious addition to their ranks in the
person of Blaise Pascal,—a name not more inseparably linked
with the history of philosophical and scientific discovery than
with the Jansenistic controversy. His sister Jacqueline had
made her profession at the convent some two years previously,
under the name of Soeur Ste. Euphémie. Her influence, added
to the fervent exhortations of Singlin and De Sacy, and the
impression produced by a remarkable escape from imminent
danger to his life, determined Pascal to dedicate the remainder
A.D. 1655. AFFAIR OF THE DUC DE LIANCOUR. 421
of his days to God; and he joined the Jansenist fraternity to-
wards the close of 1654.” Two of his intimate friends followed
him soon afterwards—the T)uc de Roannez and M. Domat, a
celebrated advocate of Clermont.
Antoine Arnauld, since the promulgation of the Bull “Cum
occasione,” or at all events since it had been confirmed by
Alexander VII., had taken refuge in prudential silence. He
sometimes visited Port Royal, but declined as far as possible all
public duty, and occupied himself in preparing a treatise in
refutation of the Calvinistic doctrine of the Eucharist. But
this interval of comparative tranquillity was to be abruptly
terminated. The Jesuits, flushed with victory, could not resist
the opportunity of dealing a fatal blow to the prestige and
power of their rivals, reckless of the consequences which such a
course might entail upon the national Church at large. At
this moment, indeed, it would have required an uncommon
share of dispassionate judgment and far-sighted wisdom to
perceive that the cause of religion would be better served by
conciliating the Port Royalists than by driving them to despe-
ration. It was ºn occasion on which, if ever, it was excusable
to identify the triumph of a party with the triumph of Catholic
truth.
• The following are the circumstances which led to the outburst
of the storm.
Among the many aristocratic patrons of the Jansenists one
of the stanchest was the Duc de Liancour, a nobleman who,
after wasting his earlier years in fashionable dissipation, had
been won to a life of piety by the counsels and example of his
wife, a daughter of the Duke of Schomberg. The Duke, when
at Paris, resided in the parish of S. Sulpice, at that time under
the pastoral charge of the celebrated Abbé Olier. In January,
1655, the Duke was informed by M. Picoté, one of the clergy of
S. Sulpice to whom he resorted for confession, that he could not
give him absolution unless he promised to break off all inter-
course with “Messieurs de Port Royal”—a connection incom-
patible with due deference to the late decisions of the Church.
In particular, the confessor required that the Duke's grand-
daughter, who was receiving her education at Port Royal,
* Bonav. Racine, IIistoire Ecclesiastique, tom. xii. p. 127.
422
THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XII.
should be removed; and that two leading Jansenists, Des
Mares and Bourgeois, who were sojourning under the duke's
roof, should no longer be entertained there. M. de Liancour,
staggered and offended, declined compliance, and left the con-
fessional without absolution.” He forthwith complained to his
friends—Vincent de Paul among others—of the strange treat-
ment he had met with ; and the affair became speedily and
widely public. It was an act of direct challenge to Port Royal,
and was not likely to pass unanswered. Antoine Arnauld,
with characteristic alacrity, stepped forth once more into the
lists, prepared to do battle à outrance against all comers. On
the 24th of February, 1655, appeared (anonymously) his ‘Lettre
à une personne de condition; ’t in which he maintains, on the
authority of St. Augustine and St. Leo, that a priest is not justified
in withholding the Sacraments from any.but persons actually
convicted and excommunicated as heretics; and that MM.
de Port Royal were by no means in that predicament. Their
doctrine, he contended, was that of St. Augustine, which had
been declared by successive Popes and Councils to be that of
the Church. And even supposing they had fallen into error,
this was a matter belonging to the cognizance of the Diocesan,
and not of the parochial clergy. Arnauld moreover asserted,
in the name of his whole party, that they were ready to abjure :
the five heretical Propositions wherever they might be found,
including the writings of Jansenius, though they were unable
to perceive them there. They were not committed, he said,
* Gerberon, Hist. Gen. du Jansen-
isme, tom. ii. p. 256.
f CEwvres d’Arnauld, tom. xix. p.
3.11.
† This line of apology was palpably
inconsistent With their earlier senti-
ments upon the question. Arnauld
himself had maintaincó in his pam-
phlet against the Enterprise de M.
Cornet, that the Propositions were not
deserving of censure, and that they
could not be condemned without intro-
ducing new articles of faith unknown
to the tradition of the Church. How
could he have argued thus, had he
not at that time believed the Proposi-
tions to be orthodox, and (what is
more) to have been really held in sub-
stance by Jansenius"?
Such a man as
Arnauld is not for a moment to be
charged with conscious disingenuous-
ness; but he was centainly a master of
the difficult art of “changing front in
face of an enemy.” For the sake of
Some readers it may be well to quote
here the deliberate opinion of the great
Bossuet as to the “fact of Jansenius.”
“If your confessor,” he writes to the
Maréchal de Bellefonds, “who forbids
you to speak of the Five Propositions
without adding that they were held by
Jansenius, means merely to prevent
you from asserting that they are not
his, he is right. You ought not to
make such an assertion; inasmuch as
even those who defend Jansenius ac-
Rnowledge that, out of respect for the
ecclesiastical judgment which has de-
A.D. 1655. ARNAULD'S - LETTERS TO A DUKE AND PEER. 423
to any private speculations broached by modern theologians;
but relied solely upon the authority and universally-accepted
teaching of St. Augustine.
The Molinists, well pleased to have provoked Arnauld to
resume his polemical attitude, launched a profusion of pamphlets
in reply, urging that mere professions of acquiescence were not
sufficient under the circumstances; that divines who at one time
had notoriously defended Jansenius were bound, after the decision
of the Vatican, to disavow their error in express terms, and
renounce the views of that author as contained, and pronounced
by the Church to be contained, in the Five Propositions. Espe-
cially was this indispensable since the Assembly of the clergy
of France had affirmed so positively that the Propositions were
condemned as being extracted from the “Augustinus’ of
Jansenius, and in the sense intended by that prelate. If the
friends of Port Royal hesitated to accept, in identical terms,
these declarations of the Holy Father and of the Gallican clergy,
they must not complain of any suspicions which might arise
with regard to the sincerity of their present professions. -
These taunts drew from Arnauld his ‘Second Letter to a
Duke and Peer of France’ (the Duc de Luynes), which bore his
name, and was dated from Port Royal des Champs, July 10,
1655. It was a volume in size, and contains a complete digest
of the discipline of the Church as to the Sacraments of Penance
and the Eucharist; followed, in the second part, by a bold
defence of the position maintained by the Jansenists in relation
to the Bull “Cúm occasione,” the declaration of the Gallican
clergy, the doctrine of Jansenius, and the five condemned Pro-
positions. Arnauld transmitted this treatise to Pope Alexander
VII., with a letter expressing unqualified submission to the
judgment of his Holiness. . . .
It was from this ‘Second Letter to a Duke and Peer’” that
cided that they are his, they are bound pure chicane) and a device for eluding
to preserve silence on that point. . . . . the judgment of the Church. To say
For the rest, I am very happy to tell that one ought not to have, and cannot
you, in a few words, my sentiments have, a pious belief in her decisions
on the main question, I am of opinion, on matters of fact, is to advance a pro-
then, that the Propositions are really position of dangerous consequence, and
and truly in Jansenius, and that | contrary both to tradition and prac-
they are the soul (l’áme) of his book. tice.” Correspondance de Bossuet, Let-
All that has been said to the contrary tres diverses. Lett. lii.
appears to me mere Sophistry (wne * CEuvres d'Arnauld, tom. xix. p. 335,
424 THE GALLICAN CEURCH. CHAP. XII.
the enemies of Arnauld extracted two distinct charges, which
they pressed against himself and the cause which he repre-
sented, with terrible and ruinous effect. They accused him, in
the first place, of denying that the Five Propositions were con-
tained in the “Augustinus’ of Jansenius—thereby contravening
the express decisions of the Holy See; and secondly, of re-
asserting, in other words, the first of the Propositions in the
following statement:-‘The Fathers point out to us, in the
person of St. Peter, a just man to whom that grace was wanting
without which we can do nothing, on an occasion when it can-
not be denied that he fell into sin.” These impeachments—the
former of which became known as the “question de fait” or of
fact, and the latter as that of “droit’ or doctrine—were for-
mally laid before the Sorbonne on the 4th of November, 1655.
The conflict of parties now became of absorbing interest,
and stirred the religious mind of France to its in most depths.
With the Jansenists it was henceforth a struggle for life or death;
for the manifest object of this new attack was to destroy for
ever the character of their leader, and to leave them no ten-
able standing-point within the pale of the Church.*
On the motion being made for a Committee to examine
Arnauld's treatise, his friends urged that, since he had appealed
to the Pope for his judgment on the work, the Sorbonne could
riot with propriety take any steps which might anticipate that
sentence. This, however, was overruled, and it was resolved by
a majority of voices to proceed with the examination. A Com-
mittee of six doctors was thereupon appointed, all of whom are
said to have been well known as hostile to the Jansenists.t
The ancient usages of the Theological Faculty seem to have
been violated without scruple on this occasion. One statute
provided that the Mendicant Friars should never enjoy more
than eight votes at the deliberative meetings—two for each
Order. Thirty and even forty monks were nevertheless allowed
to congregate in this Assembly—a number sufficient to turn the
* The following extract shows how
the Jesuit tactics were regarded at the
time by a sharp-witted man of the
world. “On continue en Sorbonne de
tourmenter le pauvre M. A. Arnauld,
qui vaut mieux que tous les Molinistes
ensemble — les uns pour avoir les
bonnes grâces de la Reine, et les
autres pour attraper des bênéfices et
avoir du credit a Rome. Auri sacra
fames, etc.” Gui Patin, Lettre celxiv.
January 11, 1655.
f Gerberon, Hist, du
Jansenisme,
tom, ii. p. 259.
A.D. 1655. ARN AULD CONDEMIN ED BY THE SORBONNE. 425
scale in whatever direction they pleased. Against this pro-
ceeding sixty doctors, with Louis de St. Amour at their head,
complained, “comme d'abus,” to the Parliament; but the Court
and Mazarin interposed, and the magistrates, availing them-
selves of a technical difficulty, postponed their decision upon
the appeal until long after the debates at the Sorbonne had
concluded.* The report of the Committee pronounced Arnauld
censurable upon both counts of the indictment: upon the first
question, that of fact—they declared his sentiments “rash,
disrespectful to the Holy See, and injurious to the clergy of
France.” His doctrine on the Second point, relating to the fall
of St. Peter, they stigmatized as heretical, and already con-
demned as such by the Church. -
A tumultuous contest arose when this report was presented to
the Faculty. Such was the prevailing disorder, that Hardouin
de Péréfixe, then Bishop of Rodez, procured a lettre de cachet
for restraining the combatants within more decorous bounds;
and the king Ordered Seguier, the Chancellor, to take his seat
in the assembly for the purpose of enforcing obedience to this
mandate.
Arnauld declined to defend himself in person, since the per-
mission to do so was clogged with conditions which he deemed
unjust and disadvantageous. He confined himself therefore to
written statements; repeating, with every variety of expression,
the same tone of self-vindication—that he had carefully studied
the ‘Augustinus, without being able to discover in it the Five Pro-
positions censured by the Pope; that, nevertheless, he cordially
acquiesced in their condemnation, and was ready to declare them
heretical in whatever work they might appear without exception;
including, therefore, the writings of Jansenius. He protested
that in making the statement complained of he had not in-
tended anything offensive to his Holiness or the French pre-
lates; he humbly craved their pardon for the unintentional
affront; and he submitted that at all events such a statement
of opinion could not be brought within the category of heresy.
With regard to the point of doctrine, Arnauld made consider-
able concessions; in a letter to the Bishop of St. Brieux he
admitted the distinction drawn by the Thomists between the
* Gui Patin, Lettre colxxxiii. tom, ii. p. 229.
426 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. à CHAP. XII.
different kinds and degrees of grace, acknowledging that by
the former the just man possesses habitually, and as it were
abstractedly, the power to keep God’s commandments, while
the latter, efficacious grace, which alone moves and deter-
mines the will, is not vouchsafed to all; notwithstanding which,
St. Thomas teaches that without such grace no man, although
regenerate and justified, can actually perform that which is
good.
After eighteen sittings the Faculty came to a vote on the
question of fact on the 14th of January, 1656. One hundred
and twenty-four doctors, among whom were forty monks, gave
their voices for the censure as proposed in the report; seventy-
One took the opposite side; eleven remained neutral.
The Assembly next proceeded to discuss the question of
doctrine. It had been arranged, in order to avoid needless pro-
lixty, that no speaker should occupy the attention of the house
for more than half an hour. The partisans of Arnauld found
it difficult to conform to this regulation; and the Chancellor
was obliged to take peremptory measures to set bounds to
the torrent of their eloquence. Upon his no less than sixty
doctors, after signing a protest against the infraction of their
liberties, left the hall in a body, and never appeared afterwards
at the meetings of the Faculty. Among the seceders was Jean
de Launoi, one of the most distinguished of the doctors for
talent, erudition, and zeal for the Gallican liberties. The Launoi
did not sympathize altogether with the school of Port Royal ;
but the harshness and unfairness of the proceedings against
Arnauld shocked his natural uprightness of mind, and he
generously declared himself in favour of the injured party.
His publications on this occasion are specially valuable, not
Only from their vigour and force of reasoning, but from the
complete independence of the author's testimony.”
The final vote was taken on the 29th of January, when the
“question de droit’ was decided against Arnauld by an im-
mense majority—nearly all his friends absenting themselves
purposely from the division. His doctrine was pronounced
“rash, impious, blasphemous, and already branded as heretical;”
* B. Racine, Hist. Eccles., tom. xi. Armaldi Propositionum,” in Arnauld's
Pt. ii. p. 356. Ste “Joann. Launoii Works, tom, xx. p. 348,
Notationes in censuram duarum Anton.
A.D. 1656. DEPRIVATION OF ARNATULD. 427
and it was ordered in consequence, that unless he should make
retractation within fifteen days by Subscribing the censure, he
should be degraded from the rank of doctor of the Sorbonne and
expelled from the Society. Nor was this all. The sentence
against Arnauld was made a test of Orthodoxy for the future.
All persons proceeding to the degree of bachelor and doctor
were required to sign the censure previously; and any member
of the Faculty who should preach, teach, maintain, or approve
the condemned opinions, was declared liable to the same penalty
of expulsion. -
Arnauld, declining to give the required Satisfaction, was
accordingly deprived of his degrees; and the sixty doctors
who had so steadfastly supported him throughout the contest
suffered a like punishment.
428 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH, CHAP. XIII.
CELA PTER XIII.
THE field was lost for the Port Royalists; but their leaders
thought it possible that, by means of a skilful diversion, a con-
siderable portion of the ground from which they had been driven
might be recovered. It was resolved to attempt this by assail-
ing with the shafts of satire—weapons at all times of peculiar
potency in France—the most vulnerable points of the enemy's
position. Such was the object of the ‘Lettres écrites a un
provincial par un de Sesamis, commonly called the ‘Provincial
Letters; the first of which appeared on the 23rd of January,
1656, while the question of Arnauld's condemnation was still
under discussion at the Sorbonne. They were written by
Pascal, at the instigation, and partly with the assistance, of
Arnauld himself. At first they were published without any
name ; afterwards the author assumed that of Louis de Mon-
talte. The “provincial” to whom they were addressed was M.
Périer, Pascal's brother-in-law, a magistrate of the Cour des aides
at Clermont. - -
In the first and second of these letters, Pascal ridicules the
technical phrases “pouvoir prochain” and “grace suffisante; ”
which, so far as mere phraseology is concerned, were perhaps
fair subjects for raillery. They expressed, however, important
theological truths; truths involving the entire discrepancy
between the views of Jansenius and the received teaching of the
Church. That man, in his regenerate state, possesses in a
certain true sense the power or capacity of keeping the Divine
commandments, was almost universally acknowledged among
orthodox Catholics; though, from the infirmity which still re-
mains in our nature, that power is not always carried out in
action. The grace which gives such power was known by
various names;–“ adjutorium sine quo non,” “gratia possibili-
tatis,” “grace suffisante,” “grace excitante,” “potential grace.”
It was thus distinguished from “efficacious grace,” namely that
by which the will is not only empowered, but moved and deter-
A.D. 1656. THE PROVINCIAL LETTERS." 429
mined to the actual fulfilment of the law. This distinction was
not admitted by the Jansenists; they held that all grace which
is “sufficient’ must be “efficacious ” also ; * from which it fol-
lowed that such a measure of grace as does not absolutely
determine the will is not sufficient for obedience; so that when a
just man falls into sin, he has no power to avoid it.
The particular epithet in question was open to exception;
and, in the hands of Pascal, the “grace suffisante qui ne suffit
pas” became irresistibly grotesque. Yet the idea is not really
paradoxical, though it has that appearance. An army may be
Sufficient, in point of numbers, courage, and science, to reduce
a given fortress; but it does not follow that it will actually
capture it. A statesman may possess sufficient talent and
experience to lead the House of Commons; but it does not
follow that he will in fact succeed in leading it. In St. Augus-
tine's words, “Non est consequens, ut qui potest venire, etiam
veniat, nisi id voluerit atque fecerit.” +
The third letter is an indignant protest against Arnauld's con-
demnation, which had at length been published. Pascal de-
nounces the Sentence as unjust, preposterous, and nugatory,
inasmuch as it was passed under coercion, and in the absence of
a large body of dissentients. “It was not Arnauld's opinions that
were declared heretical, but his person; it was a personal
heresy. He was a heretic, not on account of what he had
written, but solely because he was M. Arnauld. St. Augustine's
doctrine of grace would never be the true one, so long as it
was defended by Arnauld. It would at once become true if
he happened to oppose it. Indeed this would be the surest,
perhaps the only, Way to establish Augustinianism and to
destroy Molinism.” ~~~~ -
These three earlier letters, together with the seventeenth
and eighteenth, which conclude the series, are all that treat
directly of the Jansenistic controversy. In the fourth, the
argument is transferred from the region of dogmatic to that
of moral theology; the object of attack being the system of
casuistry practised by the Jesuits. This is criticised with
exquisite wit and trenchant force. The principle upon which
* See Jansenius, De Gratić Christi Salvatoris, Lib. iii. cap 1.
f S. Aug., De Gratié Christi, Lib. cap. 14.
430 TELE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. XIII.
the Society acted with regard to the use of the Sacraments
seems to have guided them likewise in the department of
Christian morals; namely that of softening the strictless
of the Gospel rule, so as to accommodate it to the habits of
ordinary men of the world. That rule, under their treatment,
acquired an amount of elasticity which made it practically
indulgent to human infirmity, not only in small matters, but
to a dangerous extent.” Many of the most eminent writers
on casuistical divinity in the latter half of the sixteenth and
beginning of the seventeenth centuries were Jesuits; such as
Lessius, Sanchez, Bauny, Emanuel Sa, Vasquez, Suarez, and
Antonio Escobar. In proportion as the fame and influence of
the Order increased, its confessors were perpetually brought
into contact with religious doubts, scruples, perplexities, and
emergencies of every description; and were thus almost com-
pelled to provide themselves with a code of ethics embracing,
so far as it was possible to embrace, all the numberless problems
and minute distinctions of moral responsibility. Nevertheless,
it must be recollected that the science of casuistry was not the
invention of the Jesuits. In their hands, no doubt, it received
an extreme and in many respects mischievous, development.
But long before the days of Loyola this was accounted an
essential branch of theological study; and, indeed, from the
moment when the Church enforced auricular confession as a
universal duty, it became indispensable to the clergy in the
instruction and guidance of souls. It would be easy to produce
a long list of Roman divines of all shades of opinion, who
have devoted themselves to the examination of cases of con-
Science, and have published professed treatises on the subject;
among such may be named, as altogether unconnected with
* Bossuet passes a somewhat severe
censure on them in his Oraison Funebre
de Nicolas Cornet. “Il a pris a quel-
ques docteurs une malheureuse et
inhumaine complaisance, une pitié
meurtrière, qui leur a fait porter des
coussins Sous les Coudes des pécheurs,
chercher des couvertures a leurs pas-
sions, pour condescendre à leur vanité,
et flatter leur ignorance affectee. .
Vous donc, docteurs relachés, puisque
l'Ewangile est un joug, ne le rendez
passi facile; de peur que si vous étes
chargés de Son poids, vos passions in-
domptés me le Secouent trop facile-
ment; et qu'ayant rejeté le joug, nous
me marchions indociles, superbes, indis-
ciplines, au gré de nos desirs impe-
tueux.” He deals out an equal mea-
Sure, however, to divines of the opposite
School,-“qui ont tenu les consciences
captives Sous des rigueurs très-injustes;
qui me peuvent supporter aucuno fai-
blesse; qui trainent toujours 1 onfer
après eux, et me fulminent que des
anathèmes.”
º
A.D. 1656. PASCAL’S ‘PROVINCIAL ITETTERS.” 431
the Jesuits, Bartolomeo Medina, Dominic Soto, John Nieder,
and Diego Alvarez, all of the Order of Dominicans, and Miguel
Salon, an Augustinian.
The theory of “probabilism” is impeached by Pascal in
the fifth letter, as the main source and basis of the corrupt
morality propagated by the Jesuits. According to this system,
it is lawful to follow the less probable opinion, though it be
the less sure, provided it has been held by any one doctor of
high repute for learning and piety.” And further, a doctor is
justified in giving advice which is contrary to his own con-
viction, if such advice has been sanctioned by other doctors,
whenever it appears more favourable and acceptable to the
person applying for direction. Nay, he may tender an opinion
which is held probable by some eminent divine, even when he
himself is persuaded that it is absolutely false.f. In like
manner, a confessor ought to absolve a penitent who follows
a probable opinion, although personally he may entertain the
contrary sentiment. To refuse absolution in such a case would
be mortal sin. Pascal goes on to show, in a series of instances,
how, with the help of this ingenious hypothesis, the plainest
precepts of the Divine law may be evaded, and excuses may be
found for delinquencies of all kinds. Simony, sacrilege, usury,
dishonesty, robbery, and even homicide in certain cases, are
justified on this slippery principle.
In the Seventh letter the casuists are attacked with refer-
ence to their method of “directing the intention;”—a species
of mental chicanery which undermined the very foundations of
social faith and duty. “If one can direct the mental intention
to a permitted object, one may act in whatever way is most
convenient or pleasant. Thus men are enabled at once to
Satisfy the requirements of the Gospel, and to comply with the
received usages of worldly life. They please the world by
their conduct, and at the same time they conform to the
* This doctrine is attributed to San-
chez and to Emanuel Sa.
f This is cited by Pascal as if from
the Theologia Moralis of the Jesuit
Paul Laymann; but it seems to be
Scarcely a fair version of his teaching.
His words are “Imo arbitror nihil a
ratione alienum fore, si doctor consultus
significet consulenti, opinionem a qui-
busdam viris doctis tanquam proba-
bilem defendi, quam proinde sequi ipsi
liceat ; quamvis idem doctor ejusmodi
sententiam speculative falsam esse certö
Sibi persuadeat, ut proinde ipsemet in
praxi eam sequi mon possit.”
432 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIII.
primary rule of the Gospel by purifying their inward inten-
tions.” This is, in other words, that most pernicious maxim,
that “the end justifies the means;” which has become, though
somewhat unfairly, proverbially identified with Jesuitry. The
same sophism is used by the casuists to defend prevarication,
lying, perjury, and unfaithfulness to engagements of all kinds;
for “no promise is binding when one has not the inward inten-
tion of becoming bound by it.” -
Pascal describes, in the ninth and following letters, other
expedients invented by the casuists for making the way of
salvation smooth and easy, especially as regards the duties of
devotion. He quotes from a manual called “Le Paradis ouvert,’
by Father Baumy, rules which make devotional religion to con-
sist chiefly in paying homage to images of the Virgin, saying
the “Petit chapelet des dix plaisirs de la Vierge,” pronouncing
frequently the name of Mary, desiring to build more churches
in her honour than have ever been built by all the monarchs
in the world, saying to her “bon jour” and “bon soir” every
morning and evening, and repeating every day the “Ave
Maria” in honour of the “heart of Mary.” Directions are
cited which tend to reconcile with the law of Christ all the
vices to which our depraved nature is most prone—vanity,
envy, sloth, luxury, unchastity; and various artifices are ex-
posed by which the discipline of the confessional may be
rendered wholly nugatory in the case of persons living in
habitual sin.
The sixteenth letter is devoted to a refutation of the calum-
nies of the Jesuits Meynier and Brisacier against the com-
munity of Port Royal, whom they charged with denying the
Real Presence in the Eucharist, and other Calvinistic heresies.
Pascal also undertakes to vindicate the Abbé de S. Cyran and
Antoine Arnauld from the imputation of being in league with
Geneva and the Huguenots for the destruction of the Catholic
faith; noticing especially an absurd fable called the “Con-
spiracy of Bourg-Fontaine,” at which place it was alleged that
the Jansenist leaders, mysteriously congregated in a dark wood,
had pledged themselves to a revolutionary enterprise which
was to subvert not only the Roman Church, but Christianity
itself. This is on the face of it so wildly improbable, that it is
A.D. 1656. PASCAL’S ‘ PROVINCIAL LETTERS.” 433
needless to enter on an examination of the arguments on either
side.* -
The two concluding numbers—published at the distance of a
full year from the commencement of the work, and addressed
to Father Annat—revert to the original subject-matter of the
Jansenist controversy. Pascal now lays aside his sarcastic
style, and embarks on a lengthened argumentation with the
view of rebutting the charge of heresy from himself and his
associates, and showing that the Papal censures were directed
against a mere chimera, or, at all events, against tenets which
had never been held by the Jansenists. These seventeenth
and eighteenth Letters bear marks of anxious thought and
patient labour; the latter is said to have been rewritten no
less than thirteen times. They contain many passages of
majestic eloquence, entitling their author to take eminent rank
among the masters of rhetoric. Nor are they to be despised as
specimens of learning; for Pascal produces a long list of re-
ferences to Councils, historical precedents, and the works of
standard theologians, to prove that the Pope and the Church
are not infallible in judging of matters of fact, but solely in
dogmatic definitions de fide. The meaning of a particular
author, he contends, is simply a question of fact. Upon such a
point the Pope may be mistaken; and consequently it cannot
be heresy, though it may be presumption, to differ from the
opinion propounded by his Holiness. The Church is protected
by Divine authority in the exposition of the whole body of
revealed doctrine—the “faith once delivered to the saints;”
but with regard to other matters, not affecting revelation, man-
kind are left to the guidance of natural intellect and reason.
If upon Such subjects the Church should define and exact any
belief as exclusively true, she would be exceeding her lawful
powers, and imposing upon the faithful a yoke which God has
never sanctioned. The Jansenists, then, were no heretics for
merely questioning whether Jansenius did or did not entertain
a given opinion. This is not a point of theology, but of his-
torical fact ; and therefore the “sense of Jansenius,” now so
violently debated, is in reality a matter of indifference, upon
* The Abbé Maynard, however, in his edition of the Provinciales, seems more
than half-inclined to endorse this preposterous fiction, Tom, ii. p. 215.
VOL. I. 2 F
434 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. XIII.
which men are fully at liberty to take opposite views, as they
may in estimating the published works of any other author.
IPascal inveighs fiercely against the attempt of Father Annat
to identify the “sense of Jansenius” with the theory of the
heresiarch Calvin; quoting various passages from the “Augus-
tinus’ to the effect that grace may always be resisted, and
that the human will has at all times the power to consent to
the suggestions of the Divine Spirit.” He also insists that the
Jansenistic doctrine as to the efficacy of grace is one and the
same with that of St. Thomas Aquinas; forgetting, apparently,
that the Thomists distinctly inculcated the “gratia sufficiens,”
whereas in One of the earlier ‘Provinciales’ that term had
been satirized without mercy and scornfully rejected.
The work concludes with a fervid peroration, charging all
the scandal of the existing dissensions on the Jesuits, and im-
ploring them, if not from charity towards their opponents, at
least out of compassion for the sufferings of the Church their
mother, to exchange their persecuting policy for One of con-
ciliation and peace. p
Such is a brief outline of this celebrated work; which has
done more to perpetuate the fame of Pascal than any of his
scientific or philosophical productions, though these last are of
far weightier calibre.
The immediate success of the Letters was almost unex-
ampled. A dry ecclesiastical controversy, hitherto confined
to the cloister, the schools, and the Sorbonne, suddenly con-
verted into a theme for plaisanterie and badimage, was a spec-
tacle inexpressibly diverting to the Parisian mind. Thousands
in different classes of society, who up to this time had viewed
these intricate speculations with apathy or contempt, found
themselves irresistibly attracted towards them now that they
were recommended by all the graces of a faultless style, and
accommodated to the level of an ordinary intellect. Public
indignation was at once and vehemently excited against the
Jesuit moralists; and as a natural consequence, a temporary
reaction ensued in favour of the persecuted Jansenists. Harsh
_-
* This, however, was understood by the agency of Divine grace; but they
Jansenius and his followers in an denied that grace is ever in point of
abstract sense; they acknowledged that fact resisted. See Jansen, De Grat.
the Will is able, abstractedly, to resist || Christi, Lib. ii. Capp. 24, 25, 27.
A.D. 1656. MIRACLE OF THE “SAINTE EPINE.” 435
proceedings had been commenced against them by the Govern-
ment just before the appearance of the ‘Provinciales;’ the
nuns of Port Royal were forbidden to add to the number of
their novices and boarders; the Solitaries had been expelled
from their retreat, and their schools abruptly closed. Further
Severities were averted by the vigorous castigation administered
to their enemies by Pascal; and a remarkable incident of a
different kind, which occurred at this critical moment, con-
tributed not a little to re-establish for a season the declining
fortunes of the Port Royalists. This was the miracle of the
“Sainte Epine.”
Among the “pensionnaires,” or boarders, at Port Royal de
Paris, was Marguerite Périer, a girl about eleven years of age,
daughter of M. Périer the magistrate at Clermont, and niece
of Blaise and Jacqueline Pascal. She had been afflicted for
upwards of three years with fistula lacrymalis in the left eye.
The disease was of a virulent character, and had made fearful
ravages; the bones of the nose and palate had become carious;
and the discharge of matter from the wound was so constant
and offensive as to make it necessary to seclude the patient in
great measure from the other inmates of the house. All
medical treatment had proved unavailing. The child grew
worse, and it was arranged, as a last resource, to apply the
cautery, though the surgeon gave but slender hope of a suc-
cessful result. Meanwhile the sisterhood received from an
ecclesiastic named La Poterie a precious reliquary containing
a portion of the Crown of Thorns which pierced the head of the
Redeemer.” It was carried in procession to the altar of
the convent chapel on the 24th of March, 1656, being the
Friday of the third week in Lent. The nuns, each in her turn,
kissed the sacred relic; and, when the pensionnaires approached
for the same purpose, their governess, Sister Flavia, desired
Mademoiselle Périer to commend herself to God, and apply
* The Crown of Thorns was pur-
chased by Louis IX, of France from
Baldwin II., Emperor of Constan-
tinople. The Sainte Chapelle was built
for its reception, and it was deposited
there by the pious monarch, with every
mark of profound veneration, on the
21st of April, 1248. It is still pre-
served in the Treasury of Notre Dame,
and is exposed for devotion, together
with other “instruments of the Pas-
sion,” on Good Friday every year. The
two thorns in the possession of M. de
la Poterie were given to him by Queen
Mary de Medicis.
2 F 2
436 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIII.
the reliquary to the diseased eye.” She did so, and became
conscious of a complete and instantaneous cure. -
Whether on account of the strict discipline observed during
the season of Lent, or from some other unexplained cause, the
occurrence was not mentioned in the convent till the next day,
nor was it generally known till a week afterwards. On the
31st of March, the surgeon, M. Dalence, called to see his
patient. Such was the alteration in her appearance, that, when
she entered the room, he did not recognize her; and it was not
till after minute examination, and on the most positive evidence
of her identity, that he was at length convinced that a cure had
taken place, which he did not hesitate to declare supernatural.
The news now circulated like lightning through the city. The
queen despatched her own surgeon to Port Royal to verify the
facts; and a statement was drawn up by him, in concert with
the other medical witnesses, attesting the reality of the cure,
and pronouncing such a phenomenon to be beyond and above
the operation of mere natural causes. Their testimony was
confirmed by the ecclesiastical authorities; the Grand Vicars of
the diocese, in the absence of the exiled Archbishop, published a
formal recognition of the truth of the miracle. Solemn thanks-
givings for this signal mercy were offered in the church of Port
Royal; the Holy Thorn was presented to the convent in per-
petuity; it was exposed every Friday for the veneration of the
faithful; and a long list of additional instances followed, in
which its healing virtues were exerted for the relief of the
afflicted. - -
In every point of view the miracle of the “Sainte Épine”
happened opportunely for the interests of Jansenism. How
could Port Royal be a nest of heretics when Heaven itself
interfered to work marvels in its favour P Was not the arm of
the Most High visibly stretched forth to protect this much
maligned community, and to windicate its orthodoxy in up-
holding the efficacy of His sovereign grace? The cause of Port
* I have followed the narrative of
Racine and Du Fossé. According to
Jacqueline Pascal's account it was
Sister Flavia, herself who touched the
eye of her pupil with the reliquary.
“Ellenaëme prit la Sainte relique et
l’y appliqua, Sans réflexion néamnioins.”
She adds that the cure was discovered
by Sister Flavia the same evening, and
that she reported the fact to the
Abbess; this done, they waited to see
Whether the restoration of the eye
Would prove permanent and perfect.
W. Cousin, Jacqueline Pascal.
A.D. 1656. MIRACLE OF THE “SAINTE EPINE.” 437
Royal was demonstrated to be the cause of God; within those
Walls was the chosen home and sanctuary of the Truth. Thus
reasoned, not only the superstitious multitude, but even the
intelligent and educated classes; and the impression produced
upon the public mind was such that the Government could not
Venture to disregard it. The decrees which had gone forth
against Port Royal were hastily revoked; as early as the
month of May Arnauld d'Andilly received permission to return
to his beloved retreat in the valley of Chevreuse; thither he
Was Soon followed by Antoine Arnauld, Nicole, and Antoine Le
Măitre ; the other members of the fraternity reappeared by
degrees, and the Schools were ere long again in full operation.
Viewed in combination with the extraordinary result of the
Provincial Letters, this was an epoch of legitimate triumph for
the Jansenists. Their popularity was greatly enhanced, the
number of their disciples multiplied; and, although their oppo-
nents by no means slackened in activity, the minority on the
whole maintained their ground with success. An interval of
some years ensued, during which they were not molested by
any further measures of forcible repression. -
Two centuries have not sufficed to settle the questions arising
from this singular episode of ecclesiastical history; those ques-
tions being, in the first place, whether the cure of Marguerite
JPérier was real; and if real, whether, secondly, it was supernatural.
The truth is that questions of this nature can seldom be posi-
tively determined. Except by minds of a peculiar bias, “eccle-
siastical miracles” (as they are called to distinguish them from
those recorded in Holy Scripture) will always be regarded with
insurmountable prejudice. Persons, not otherwise Sceptically
inclined, will reject with a smile of contempt the notion of
supernatural agency as manifested in the Church of any age
subsequent to that of the Apostles. The whole stream of
Christian history, they urge, abounds with instances both of
visionary delusion and of fraudulent fabrication for unworthy
ends; and, under such circumstances, the weight of presumption
against the genuineness of any particular miracle is all but
Overpowering. -
Yet surely it cannot be logically maintained that, because
the miracles of our Lord and His Apostles are distinct in
character from those ascribed to the uninspired ages, therefore
438 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. CHAP. XIII.
these latter were not in any sense manifestations of a power
beyond and above nature. Nor, again, because we find in
history many cases of spurious miracles, or “pious frauds,”
will it follow that all modern occurrences involving miraculous
pretensions are to be consigned to the same category. Nothing
can be more unphilosophical than to found our opinions on
such matters on mere à priori assumption or arbitrary preju-
dice. The true is to be discriminated from the false (in points
not ruled by Infallible Authority) by patiently weighing the
force and value of conflicting evidence, by scrutinizing motives
and interests, by applying the tests of Sound and enlightened
criticism.
The prodigy of the “Sainte Épine” is supported by evidence
which, if adduced to prove any ordinary fact, would probably
be held conclusive. The various theories suggested for ex-
plaining it on merely natural grounds are scarcely less difficult
to accept (some of them are more SO) than the account of the
Port Royalists themselves. Is it conceivable, for instance, that
a sister of Mademoiselle Perier, who was also residing in the
convent, was substituted for the real sufferer, and that the
medical certificates attesting the cure were thus obtained by
means of a gross deception ? Or again, is it easy to believe,
with M. Sainte Beuve,” that the application of the reliquary
was made with so much force as to burst the morbid tumour,
which thereupon dispersed so rapidly as to leave within the
space of a few days no trace whatever of disease ?
Admitting, however, that the facts of the case are well
authenticated, it by no means follows that the Jansenists were
justified in the inferences which they drew from them. They
argued that such an event not only marked out Port Royal as
a spot singularly privileged by Heaven, but also that it esta-
blished incontestably the truth of the peculiar doctrines which
Port Royal represented. It proved, beyond all further dispute,
that Jansenius was Orthodox; that Arnauld was innocent; that
St. Cyran was a persecuted Saint; that Innocent X. was a mis-
guided tyrant; that the Sorbonne was a conclave of benighted
dotards. Such a conclusion was simply preposterous. The
miraculous cure (if such it was) testified to the infinite bene-
* Ste. Beuve, Port Royal, tom. iii. p. 111.
A.D. 1656. PROCEEDINGS AGAINST THE CASUISTS. 439
volence of that Being, whose “tender mercies are over all
His works;” but it were mere fanaticism to interpret it as
a decision from above, on one side or the other, of a vexed
question in polemical theology. -
Father Annat, in a vigorous pamphlet, entitled “Rabat-joie
des Jansenistes,’ contested the genuineness of the miracle,
denied the consequences deduced from it by the Port Royalists,
and even maintained that, so far from proving anything in
their favour, it was rather to be looked upon as a fresh call to
repent of their heretical aberrations. To this an anonymous
reply was published, which is attributed to Pascal, and inserted
among his works; but there is reason to believe that he was
largely assisted by the Abbé de Pontchâteau, one of his brother
Solitaries, and perhaps by others.
Marguerite Périer (the miraculée, as she was called by her
friends) survived to the age of eighty-seven, and died at Cler-
mont in the year 1733, preserving to the last an immovable
conviction of the reality of the restoration wrought by the Sainte
Epine.
The storm of clamour against the casuists—excited by the
‘Provinciales’—was not easily appeased. The parish priests
of Rouen, at a meeting held on the 28th of August, 1656, de-
nounced the moral teaching of the Jesuits to their Archbishop,
De Harlai. That prelate referred their complaint to the convo-
cation of clergy then sitting at Paris; and upon this the curés
of the capital came forward in support of their brethren, and
drew up a list of forty propositions, extracted from the works
of the principal casuists, which they submitted to the judgment
of the Assembly. A committee of bishops was appointed to
report on it; but the synod was on the point of separating, and
there was no time to enter on a discussion of Such serious
importance. The house contented itself with ordering an edition
of St. Charles Borromeo's ‘Instructions to Confessors’ to be
printed at its expense, and circulated in every diocese, “to serve
as a barrier for arresting the spread of novel opinions tending
to the destruction of Christian morals.” This must have been
mortifying to the Jesuits, since it was well known that Arnauld's
book, ‘De la fréquente Communion,’ was derived principally
from this very treatise of St. Charles, which was thus recom-
mended as a text-book for the clergy throughout France.
440 - THE GALLICAN CHURCH. HAP. XIII.
But the contest was renewed shortly afterwards, by the
appearance of an unlucky “Apologie pour les Casuistes contre
les calomnies des Jansénistes,’ from the pen of the Jesuit
F. Pirot.* This ill-judged effusion consisted chiefly of vulgar
ridicule and personal abuse; in point of reasoning it was
wretchedly feeble; and its effect was to injure instead of further-
ing the cause it meant to advocate. A violent outcry arose
against it from all parts of the country. The curés of Paris and
Rouen put forth a series of factums or memorials on the subject,
which were composed in reality by the Port Royalists—Pascal,
Arnauld, Nicole, and Hermant, being the principal writers.
The “Apology’ was disavowed officially by the Jesuits, according
to their custom in such emergencies. They declared that Pirot
had acted on his own responsibility, contrary to the advice of
his superiors; and the unfortunate author was so deeply wounded
by this treatment, that he fell into a lingering sickness which
brought him to his grave. His work was referred to the Sor-
bonne, and was condemned by that body in July, 1658. This
was followed immediately by a censure from the vicars-general
of the Archbishop of Paris; t and corresponding measures were
taken in all the other dioceses, with some few exceptions, to
express the strong disapproval with which the French clergy
viewed the corrupt principles and practices complained of. The
Bishops of Pamiers, Alet, Comminges, Angers, and Wence, all
well known for their Jansenist sympathies, distinguished them-
selves by strongly-worded mandements on this occasion. In
1659 the ‘Apology’ likewise incurred the censure of the Inqui-
sition at Rome.
The ‘Provinciales’ thus enabled the Port Royalists to turn the
tables with damaging effect on their opponents, and also did
good service to the Church at large by exposing the dangerous
sophistries of false teachers. There were, however, considerable
deductions from the completeness of this triumph. It was
felt in many quarters, that although individual authors might
have been extravagant and reprehensible in treating casuistical
questions, and might have Sanctioned doctrines of an injurious
* B. Racine, Hist. Eccles, tom. xiii. and the administration of the diocese,
Pt. ii. Art. xxxv. in his absence, was, to a great extent,
f De Retz, it must be remembered, undor their influence.
was disposed to favour the Jansenists;
A.D. 1657. CENSURE OF THE “PROVINCIAL LETTERS.” 441
tendency, it would be grossly unjust to throw the blame of this,
exclusively and undividedly, upon the Jesuit body.” Casuistry
was not a science peculiar to the Jesuits, although it was true
that members of that Society had cultivated it with pre-eminent
success. The charge of teaching false morality might be sub-
stantiated quite as easily from the writings of Dominicans,
Franciscans, and other religious schools, as from those of the
disciples of Loyola. Considering the multitude of divines who
had handled the subject at various times and in different
countries, it would be strange if they had not been occasionally
misled into erroneous decisions; but the Jesuits, as an Order,
could not fairly be held responsible for these mistakes; that
Society had repudiated and condemned them, by the sentence
of its highest authority, long before they had fallen under the
lash of Port Royal. It was alleged, moreover, that in numbers
of instances the author of the ‘Provinciales’ had been guilty of
misquotation, mistranslation, and malicious perversion of the
true sense of the writings which he criticized ; and that the worst
imputations against the Casuists were founded on mere frag-
ments detached from their context, and cited in that form solely
for the sake of exciting Odium. These complaints, which were
to a certain extent supported by clear proof, were not without
weight in the mind of the more calmly-judging part of the
community, though insufficient to counterbalance the general
effect of Pascal's inimitable Letters. The feeling against them
first found public expression in a decree of the Parliament of
Aix, in Provence, in March, 1657, which stigmatized the volume
as “full of calumnies, falsehoods, forgeries, and libels,” and con-
demned it to be burnt by the executioner. After this, several
prelates animadverted upon it in their pastoral addresses; and
in September, 1657, it was branded by the censure of the Inqui-
sition, and placed on the Index, in company with the two famous
letters of Antoine Arnauld. Two years later Pascal's work,
which had been admirably translated into Latin, with notes, by
Nicole, under the assumed name of Guillaume Wendrock, was
* An unprejudiced critic, the Pro- blamées, et qui mit sur le compto de
testant Schoell, gives the following toute la Societé certaines extravagances
Cstimate of the Provinciales: — C'est de quelques Pères Espagnols et Fla-
un ouvrage de parti, oil la mauvaise foi mands.” Cours d'Histoire des Etats
attribuait au Jésuites des opinions sus- Européens, Vol. xxviii. p. 79.
pecies que depuis longtemps ils avaient
442 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIII.
denounced by the Parliament of Bordeaux; and the case having
been argued, the court determined, before giving judgment, to
refer the book to the Theological Faculty of the University for
its opinion. That body, after due examination, pronounced the
Letters of Montalte to be free from doctrinal heresy, and, with
regard to morals, commended them in the highest terms. Upon
this the Jesuits, who were still all-powerful at Court, procured
a royal ordonnance naming a Commission of bishops and divines
to scrutinize the work afresh; and in time a report appeared,
affirming that the heresies of Jansenius, already condemned by
the Church, were maintained and defended in the Letters of
Montalte, in the Notes of Wendrock, and in the Disquisitions
of Paulus Irenaeus (another sobriquet adopted by Nicole), and
that accordingly these writings had justly incurred the legal
penalties against heretical and libellous publications. There-
upon an arrêt of the Council of State ordered the said Writings
to be publicly torn and burned by the “Exécuteur de haute
justice,” which sentence was carried into effect on the 14th of
October, 1660.*
Such, however, is the transcendent power of genius, that
neither royal commissions, nor judicial condemnations, nor even
the thunders of the Vatican itself, prevailed to dethrone the
Provincial Letters from their lofty place in popular estimation.
The attempts made on the part of the Jesuits to refute them
showed so decided an inferiority of intellectual gifts, that for
the most part they were utter failures. The only apologist
for the Order who seems to have produced any impression on
the public mind was Father Daniel, author of the well-known
‘History of France; ' who, in his ‘Entretiens de Cléanthe et
d'Eudoxe, written in 1694, exposed with considerable force the
mistakes and unjust imputations into which Pascal had been
betrayed. This book was eagerly read, the whole of the first
edition disappearing almost instantaneously. It was reprinted
Several times, and was translated into Italian and other languages.
* D'Argentré, Coll. Jud., tom. iii.
p. 294. B. Racine, Hist, Eccles, tom.
xii. Pt. i. Art. 21.
f “La reponse aux Provinciales par
le P. Daniel Jésuite a disparu quasi
avant que de parăitre. Elle ne coſtait
que 50 Sols, et l'on dit qu'on a offert
d’en rendro un louis d’or de 24 francs à.
ceux qui l’avoient acheté, s'ils wouloient
la rendre. On a dit qu'on n’a pas
woulu la laisser parăitre, choquante
comme elle est pour M. Nicole.” Bayle,
CEuvres Diverses, tom. iv. p. 711.
A.D. 1660. PASCAL ON LE DROIT ET LE FAIT. 443
The style was judicious, the reasoning powerful, the facts adduced
indisputable; and yet all these recommendations failed to secure
a permanent triumph over such an antagonist as Pascal. Father
Daniel established beyond contradiction many particularinstances
of misrepresentation, exaggeration, calumnious aspersion, and
malicious suppression of the truth; but of the multitudes who
had laughed over the libel, not one in a thousand ever saw the
reply by which it was demolished; mor, indeed, could it be
expected that cold, sober, unimpassioned argument should undo
the effect which had been created by brilliant wit and scathing
Sarcasm. Hence the verdict originally pronounced on the Pro-
Vincial Letters by the generation to which the writer addressed
himself has never since been reversed. -
Whether the theory based on the subtle distinction between
the “droit.” and the “fait” was ever really embraced by the
singularly candid mind of Pascal is a point of psychology which
We have no means of determining with certainty. It is probable
that on first embarking in the controversy, he adopted, without
examination, the line of defence devised by his Jansenist friends,
conscious that he was not sufficiently well versed in theology to
frame a system for himself. But it is a remarkable fact that
Subsequently, as the result of mature thought, he was led to avery
different conclusion. In the seventeenth of the Provincial Letters
he admits, like all the rest of the party, that the Five Proposi-
tions were heretical and rightly condemned, but denies that they
expressed the opinions of Jansenius; upon this latter point,
being a question of fact, he contends that it is lawful to demur
to the decision of the Holy See, since the gift of infallibility
extends only to matters of dogmatic faith. But in the sequel
he abandoned this position as untenable; and declared that
the Vatican had condemned the doctrine of efficacious grace,”
which was undoubtedly the doctrine of Jansenius, and not
only of Jansenius, but of St. Augustine and St. Paul. He held,
accordingly, that the Popes had erred, not in a question of fact,
but in an article of faith: that they had condemned an essen-
tial Christian verity. And, in consequence, the faithful could
not, in his judgment, accept a Formulary which Solemnly abjured
* This, however, was a mistake. The Papal bull did not condemn the efficacious-
ness of grace, but the doctrine that it cannot be resisted.
444 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIII.
all that the Apostolic See had condemned, without expressly
eacepting the so-called “sense of Jansenius” as to the Five
Propositions. This change of sentiment placed Pascal in opposi-
tion to the Port Royalists, and caused a certain coldness and
estrangement between them. Various explanatory statements
were exchanged,” but Pascal's views were now those of sincere
personal conviction, and he maintained them unflinchingly to the
end. His sister Jacqueline (Soeur St. Euphémie), a person of
eminent Saintliness of mind and character, had discovered, as
she conceived, the true force of the Papal decision before it
became apparent to her brother; hence the famous Formulary,
which was imposed on the Church in 1660 as an anti-Jansenist
test, was to her an object of conscientious and profound abhor-
rence. Yielding, after a long struggle, to the authority and
specious reasoning of her spiritual guides, the noble-minded
Jacqueline subscribed the Formulary in July, 1661; but the
mental distress occasioned by this act, and the remorse which
followed, rapidly undermined her health, and on the 4th of Oc-
tober in the same year she sank into the grave. This tragical
end of a sister to whom he was tenderly attached made an inef-
faceable impression upon Pascal, and no doubt shortened his own
life. A scene of Ostensible, but, as it would seem, incomplete,
reconciliation with Arnauld and Nicole took place in his dying
chamber; and, without retracting his dissent from the authori-
tative sentence of the Sovereign Pontiff, Pascal expired on the
19th of August, 1662. But we are anticipating the order of
events. • -
* CEuvres de Pascal, tom, iii. p. 607.
A.D. 1656. TEIF CIERGY AND THE FORMULATY. 445
CEIAPTER XIV.
THE Assembly of the French clergy, judging it needful to take
measures for enforcing submission to the Papal bulls against
Jansenism, adopted that of a Formulary, to be signed by all
ecclesiastics and religious houses. Such a proceeding was one
of questionable wisdom, and could only be justified by the
extreme urgency of existing circumstances. It was defended
on the ground of the necessity of withstanding the insubor-
dination of the recusant party, and as a safe-guard against
Schism in the National Church, which there seemed too much
reason to apprehend. Its effects, however, as we shall see,
were to prolong and exasperate the already passionate strife of
parties.
The task of drawing up the Formulary was entrusted by
the synod of 1656 to Pierre de Marca, Archbishop of Toulouse,
the distinguished author of the treatise ‘De Concordiá. Sacer-
dotii et Imperii.' That prelate prepared a draft accordingly,
which was approved by the Assembly; and information of the
proposed step was immediately despatched to Rome. Alexander
VII. replied by the bull “Ad sacram,” dated October 16th, 1656,
which confirmed those of his predecessor, and denounced as
“disturbers of public peace and children of iniquity” those
who pretended that the Five Propositions were not to be found
in Jansenius. Alexander declared, moreover, that the Propo-
sitions were condemned in the Sense of Jamsenius;–“ in sensu
ab eodem Cornelio intento.” This bull was not received by
the French synod till the 17th of March, 1657; when it was
resolved to modify the form of subscription, so as to include
the latest communication from the Holy See.*
The following were the terms finally agreed upon :-‘T,
the undersigned, do submit sincerely to the constitution of
Pope Innocent X., of the 31st May, 1653, according to its true
* Mémoires du Clergé de France, tom. i. p. 312.
446 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CIIAP. XIV.
signification, which has been determined by the constitution of
our Holy Father Pope Alexander VII., of the 16th of October,
1656. I acknowledge myself bound in conscience to obey
these constitutions, and I condemn with heart and mouth the
doctrine of the Five Propositions of Cornelius Jansenius, con-
tained in his book entitled ‘Augustinus,” which has been
condemned by the two Popes and by the bishops; the said
doctrine being not that of St. Augustine, but a misinterpreta-
tion of it by Jansenius, contrary to the meaning of that great
doctor.”
At the request of the Assembly a Royal message was sent
to the Parliament, directing them to register the bull “Ad
Sacram,” and announcing at the same time that all ecclesiastics
would be expected to subscribe the Formulary within the space
of a month. Corresponding instructions were forwarded to the
provincial Parliaments; and the tribunals were forbidden to
entertain any appeal comme d’abus which might be presented
On this subject. Lastly, a circular letter from the Assembly
to the members of the French episcopate exhorted them to
enforce conformity with these regulations in their several
dioceses.
The bull of Pope Alexander was accordingly published
throughout France, and the prescribed notice given with regard
to the subscription of the Formulary. But the bishops uni-
versally abstained from insisting on a literal application of
the test. The vicars-general of the diocese of Paris, who, as
already noticed, were partisans of the Jansenists, openly im-
pugned the Formulary as containing falsehoods and absurdi-
ties; and re-echoed the hackneyed arguments by which their
friends had so long striven to evade the plain meaning of the
Papal decrees. The Government did not interpose to press com-
pliance; and the result was that the Formulary remained a
dead letter for upwards of three years.
The publication of the bull “Ad sacram ” added seriously to
the difficulties of the Jansenist position. Hitherto it had been
pleaded that the Five Propositions did not express the Senti-
ments of Jansenius; that his teaching was none other than
that of St. Augustine, which the Pope himself had declared to
be untouched by the decision; and that, in consequence, the
doctrine of Jansenius had not been condemned at all. But
A.D. 1657. TEIE CLERGY AND THE FORMULARY. 447
this ground could no longer be maintained; it was now dis-
tinctly ruled that the Propositions were condemned in the very
sense in which Jansenius held and published them. Hence,
if it should be made compulsory to sign a Formulary embo-
dying this statement, the only choice open to the Jansenists
would lie between rejecting the authoritative judgment of the
Apostolic See, and subscribing what they believed in their con-
sciences to be untrue. Antoine Arnauld, perplexed by this
dilemma, gave vent to his feelings in a pamphlet which he en-
titled ‘Cas proposé par un docteur, touchant la signature de la
Constitution d’Alexandre VII., et du Formulaire du Clergé.’
It was addressed to Nicolas Pavillon, Bishop of Alet, whom
the writer professed to consult for the removal of his scruples;
but it would seem that in reality his mind was already made up
as to the course to be pursued.
The following questions were propounded for solution:—First,
whether a divine hitherto firmly convinced that the Propositions
are not in Jansenius, and are not condemned in the sense of that
writer, is bound to change his opinions in consequence of the
Papal bull and the deliberations of the clergy of France 2 Se-
condly, whether the same divine, still retaining his persuasion
that Jansenius has taught no other doctrine than that of St.
Augustine, can nevertheless subscribe the Formulary P Lastly,
whether it is allowable, considering all the circumstances, to
preserve a respectful Silence with regard to the bull, under
the impression that the Pope may bave been misinformed as
to the matter of fact involved in the charge against Jansenius?
Replying to his own inquiries, Arnauld decided the two
former points in the negative, the latter in the affirmative.
The Bishop of Alet, however, took the opposite view of the
case; and expressed himself of opinion, to the great surprise
of the Jansemists, that the individual in question not only
might subscribe the Formulary, but ought to do so, notwith-
standing his conviction of the Orthodoxy of Jansenius; since
the authority of the Sovereign Pontiff must override all private
sentiments, and although a clear distinction existed between
matters of fact and articles of faith, in the case of Jansenius
the two questions were so closely interwoven, that it would
not be wise or safe to separate them.
Arnauld rejected this unpalatable advice, and pursued the
448 - TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. - CHAP. XIV.
discussion. In a second letter to the Bishop he urged that the
submission due to the Holy See must be limited by the claims
of reason, which God has manifestly given for our direction in
all important enquiries. He was convinced, by irresistible
evidence, that the Pope had acted under a misapprehension of
facts in the condemnation of Jansenius. How then could he
be expected to accept, contrary to the dictates of his own reason,
a conclusion which he knew to be founded upon erroneous pre-
mises P. Upon a question of simple fact the Pope had no right
to claim infallibility; inasmuch then as the judgment in this
case was not infallible, it was sufficient to submit to it in
silence, retaining at the same time his own conscientious con-
viction, which indeed it was impossible to alter. -
The Bishop of Alet, a man of remarkable honesty and im-
partiality of mind, was much impressed by these considerations.
He resolved to devote himself to a still deeper investigation of
the questions at issue; and this scrutiny resulted in an import-
ant change of Sentiment as to the objections raised by Arnauld,
and in general as to the relative position of the contending
parties. From that time forward Pavillon was one of the most
energetic and unfaltering defenders of the Jansenist cause.
Yet the ground thus taken by the Jansemists, if examined dis-
passionately, must be pronounced evasive and fallacious. The
T'ope, on their hypothesis, was infallible in matters of faith, but
fallible in questions of fact; and whether Jahsenius had
broached a certain doctrine in a particular work, they main-
tained to be purely a question of fact.
But this theory may be taxed with inconsistency. If the
supreme Pontiff be infallible in defining dogma, he must be
able to declare with equal certainty that such and such dogmas
are laid down in a given volume; for this may happen to be
the very hinge upon which an entire controversy turns; and in
the case of the Five Propositions it was actually so.
If the Pope, though doctrinally incapable of error, may at the
same time misapprehend the sense of the writings upon which
his decision is sought, it is difficult to perceive in what his infal-
libility consists. How can he decide questions of dogma, unless he
can also interpret Works which treat of dogma P To pretend that
the interpretation of such works is a question of fact as opposed
A.D. 1657. THEORY OF PAPAL INFALLIBILITY. 449
to one of doctrine, is a mere abuse of language. These are
not ordinary facts, but facts which are involved of necessity in
controversies of faith; and with respect to Such facts, it is plain
that either the Pope must be able to pronounce unerringly,
or that he is not infallible at all. No one, of course, pretended
that the Pope can judge of any private ideas or purposes which
a man may secretly cherish in his own mind. An author may
possibly believe the very contrary to that which he has ex-
pressed in words; but the Church is concerned only with the
natural legitimate Sense of his published language; and, on
*Oman principles, it must be competent to the Pope, acting
as the organ of the Church, to determine whether certain
opinions have actually been broached, and whether they are or
are not in accordance with the Rule of Faith. If every one
whom Rome condemns could excuse himself by alleging that
the Pope has misunderstood him, and that in point of fact he
never entertained such sentiments, it would follow that the
judicial functions of the Papal Chair must in course of time be
altogether superseded. Heresy might be perpetually condemned,
and heretics might nevertheless persist in propagating the self-
Same errors, on the pretext that their real opinions were totally
distinct from those specified in the censure. - -
Whether it be true that the Pope, as an individual, possesses
the power of deciding in the name of the Church, without the
assistance and consent of a General Council, is another question,
which, however momentous, does not enter into the case before
us; since, as before observed, the Jansenists professed to acknow-
ledge the Papal infallibility in judgments de fide. Thus they
occupied a false position; and as the controversy proceeded, it
became more and more evident that their system tended logically
to the denial of a doctrine which in words they affected to
maintain, the infallibility of the Holy See.
This, however, makes it none the less a matter of regret that
the French clergy should have taken so ill-judged a course in
framing and enforcing the Formulary. Such a policy under
such circumstances could have but one, and that a calamitous,
issue. The Jesuits, to whose counsels it was chiefly due, had
abundant reason to lament in the sequel a measure of which the
ultimate reaction fell with disastrous weight upon themselves.
The appearance of a circular letter from Cardinal de Retz,
WOL. I. 2 G
450 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
who from his retreat at Rome intrigued incessantly for the pur-
pose of obtaining favourable terms of accommodation, incensed
the Government afresh against the Jansenists in the course of
the year 1660.* The offending document was attributed to
Arnauld; and if not actually penned by him, there is no doubt
that in substance it was inspired by Port Royal. Hence
Mazarin made it a pretext for insisting on the execution of
the harsh enactments against the recusant party. On the
meeting of the Assembly in December, 1660, the three presiding
prelates were summoned to the Louvre, where the young king
informed them that, for the advancement of the glory of
God, the repose of his subjects, and his own Salvation, he was
resolved to extirpate Jansenism from his dominions; and en-
joined them to concert with their brethren the means which
they might deem most effectual for the accomplishment of this
pious purpose. In compliance with this expression of the royal
will, the Assembly passed a vote on the 1st of February, 1661,
by which the signature of the Formulary was made absolutely
obligatory upon the whole clergy secular and regular, upon
members of religious Orders, nuns as well as monks, and even
upon directors of colleges and schools.
On the 13th of April this resolution was confirmed by an
arrêt of the Council of State; and Louis added a circular letter
to the bishops, exhorting them to carry into immediate execu-
tion the measures prescribed by the Assembly. A letter to
the same effect was sent to the Sorbonne, and was obeyed
without hesitation; the Faculty ordered that the Formulary
should be subscribed by all doctors and bachelors of theology,
and by all candidates for degrees.
Cardinal Mazarin did not live to see the result of these
unwise proceedings. After a tenure of supreme power which
had lasted, with very brief intervals, for eighteen years, he
expired on the 9th of March, 1661; leaving behind him a repu-
tation which ill became his exalted station in the Church. As
he had always shown himself decidedly hostile to the Jansenists,
* In this letter De Retz indulged in
bitter invectives against Mazarin, and
hinted that, if justice were still denied
him, he should be compelled to resort
to extreme measures, which he had
hitherto forborne to employ, from un-
willingness to add to the difficulties of
the Stade during the war. This was
supposed to point to an interdict upon
the diocese of Paris. Mémoires de Joly,
tom. i.
A.D. 1661. RELIGIOUS POLICY OF LOUIS XIV. 451
they imagined at first that his death might turn to their advan-
tage; but a very short time sufficed to dispel this illusion.
They had an enemy in the highest quarter.
The circumstances of his education, and the traditions of the
administration of Richelieu, had inspired Louis XIV. with a
strong antipathy to Jansenism, which he had learned to regard
in the light of an organized opposition to his authority. Accord-
ingly, it became plain, from the moment when he took the
government into his own hands, that if there was one principle
of policy upon which he was more determined than another, it
was the complete humiliation and extinction of this disaffected
party in the Church. One of his first acts was to appoint a
“council of conscience,” as it was called, to which he entrusted
the chief management of ecclesiastical affairs, including the
presentation to vacant bishoprics and benefices. The persons
who composed this board were Pierre de Marca, Archbishop of
Toulouse; Hardouin de Péréfixe, then Bishop of Rodez and after-
wards Archbishop of Paris; and Father Annat, the king's
Jesuit confessor. The selection of such names was a tolerably
clear intimation to the friends of Port Royal of the treatment
they might expect for the future.
It was not to be expected that the Formulary would be
acquiesced in by the Jansenists without a desperate resistance.
Loud complaints were made in various quarters against the
Assembly, for having exceeded the bounds of its authority in
framing a new confession of faith, and dictating to the bishops
in the administration of their dioceses. Under pretence of
upholding the discipline of the Church, such a proceeding, it
was urged, subverted its most fundamental principles. Others
declared that the signature of the Formulary would involve an
act of positive heresy; since, in condemning Jansenius, it con-
demned by implication St. Augustine, and thus opened the door
to all the errors of Pelagianism. The Vicars-general of the
diocese of Paris, though not venturing openly to contravene the
orders of the Sovereign, published an Ordonnance for the signa-
ture which differed considerably from the form drawn up by the
Assembly. They alleged that the only question discussed at
Rome was whether the Five Propositions were in themselves
orthodox, or the contrary; and hence they concluded that, with
regard to the “fact of Jansenius,” nothing more was requisite
2 G 2
452 THE GALLICAN CHURCEI. º CHAP. XIV.
than a respectful acceptance of the Papal constitutions. This
was virtually to recognize the validity of the Jansenist distinc-
tion between the fait and the droit, and was therefore a mere
evasion of the meaning of the Formulary. The Assembly of
the Clergy denounced this document to the king, and his
Majesty, having caused it to be examined by certain prelates,
declared it null and void, as contrary to the decisions of the
Holy See, and ordered it to be revoked. The parochial clergy of
Paris, on the other hand, published an official statement testi-
fying that, so far from causing offence, the mandement had
been received with feelings of gratitude and edification by
themselves and the faithful to whom they ministered.
The Vicars-general appealed to Rome; and Alexander re-
sponded on the 1st of August by a brief rebuking them strongly
for having advanced a manifest falsehood, in saying that the
question of the authorship of Jansenius had not been examined
or decided at Rome. The Pope commanded them to revoke
their mandement as soon as they received his brief, under pain
of the heaviest censures. After some hesitation, they obeyed;
and issued on the 31st of October a second Ordonnance, in
terms precisely conformable to the resolution of the Assembly;
requiring the signature of the Formulary “pure et simple,”
without any attempt to distinguish between the droit and the
fait.
The Court, instigated by the Jesuits, now commenced a
relentless persecution of the two convents of Port Royal. In
April, 1661, an armed force, headed by the lieutenant-civil,
expelled from both houses the pensioners, novices, and pos-
tulants, and ordered that none should be admitted for the
future. A lettre de cachet was signed, banishing Singlin, the
director, to Quimper in Brittany; but timely notice having
been forwarded to him, he escaped before it could be executed.
A new Superior and confessor was imposed on the two commu-
nities, and installed by the Grand Vicar on the 17th of May.
Two priests were appointed to act under him, belonging to the
Seminary of S. Nicolas du Chardonnet, an institution notoriously
adverse to the Jansenists. The Schools of Port Royal, which
had acquired such celebrity under the management of Lan-
celot, Nicole, Le Măitre, and Floriot, were at the same time
finally closed.
A.D. 1661. THE FORMULARY ENFORCED AT PORT ROYAL. 453
The next stroke was to compel the unfortunate nuns to sub-
scribe the Formulary. It was tendered to them in the first
instance in the terms of the mandement originally issued by the
Vicars-general; which, indeed, had been composed chiefly with
a view to facilitate the acceptance of the test by their party.
The sisters of the Paris convent signed without much diffi-
culty; but at Port Royal des Champs the struggle was pain-
fully severe. Many of its inmates felt that they could not
comply without violating the plain dictates of conscience;
they were incompetent to decide for themselves the merits
of the questions in dispute; and they were sorely perplexed
by a division of opinion which arose at this crisis among
the leading members of their own party.” They signed at
length, with heavy hearts, on the 23rd of June; but to
several of them this most needless piece of cruelty was a blow
from which they never recovered. One of the victims, as
before related, was the admirable sister of Pascal, the Soeur de
Ste. Euphémie. The Mère Angélique herself, who had long
been sinking under the ravages of a mortal disease, survived
the distressing scene only a few weeks. During her last illness
she edified all around her by her extraordinary patience, deep
humility, and unshaken confidence in God;—qualities the more
remarkable, since the forcible removal of Singlin, De Sacy,
and Ste. Marthe, her much-valued spiritual advisers, had left
her in a grievous state of mental dejection and desolation.
The saintly Abbess entered into her rest on the 6th of August,
1661, in the seventieth year of her age.
But the Jesuits, not satisfied with having extorted from Port
Royal this act of qualified submission, insisted that nothing
would suffice short of accepting the Formulary “pure et
simple,” according to the tenor of the last-received mandate
from Rome. This was demanded accordingly ; and the sister-
hood proceeded to debate, in a state of extreme embarrassment
and agitation, as to the course to be pursued. Their conclusion
was that it was impossible to comply without adding an eaſplana-
tion, signifying in substance that they cordially adopted all
decisions of the Holy See in points of faith, but declining to
pledge themselves to a like submission as to other matters. This
* See above, p. 444. - tion (dated November 26, 1661):—
# The following was their declara- || “Nous Abbesse, Prieures et Religieuses
454 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
was pronounced unsatisfactory, and the nuns were admonished
that they must sign the test in the precise shape in which it was
offered to them, without qualification or explanation of any
kind. -
At this juncture, when Port Royal seemed on the very brink
of final ruin, events occurred which Once more procured a
respite of some duration for the persecuted party. Early in
the year 1662 a reconciliation was effected between Cardinal de
Retz and the Court, on which occasion that prelate resigned the
archbishopric of Paris. His vicars-general, in consequence,
vacated their office ipso facto ; and their ordonnance for the
signature of the Formulary was no longer in force. The learned
De Marca was nominated to succeed, but some time necessarily
elapsed before he was in a position to enter on his functions;
and at the moment when the bulls of institution at length
arrived, the new archbishop was suddenly attacked by a mortal
sickness, and expired three days afterwards, on the 27th of June.
Upon this the king resolved to transfer Hardouin Beaumont de
Péréfixe, who had formerly been his preceptor, from the see of
Rodez to that of the metropolis. But unforeseen circumstances
occasioned fresh delays; an insult offered to the French ambas-
sador at Rome, the Duc de Créqui, by the Pope's Corsican guard,
became a subject of serious dispute between the two courts, and
at one time threatened to produce an open rupture. The Papal
Chancery was intractable; and nearly two years elapsed before
Péréfixe received the bulls completing his new dignity. Thus
the diocese remained still under provisional government.
Meanwhile several of the French bishops, and those not the
least eminent for ability, learning, and piety, expressed with honest
freedom their repugnance to the Formulary, and deprecated its
execution. The venerable Pavillon, Bishop of Alet, took the
lead. In an energetic letter to Vialart, Bishop of Châlons, he
des deux Monastères de Port Royal de
Paris et des Champs, assemblées capi-
tulairement en chacune des deux mai-
sons, pour satisfaire à l’Ordonnance de
Mrs. les Vicaires-généraux de Mon-
Seigneur le Cardinal de Retz du der-
nier Octobre 1661, considérant que
dans l'ignorance oil mous Sommes de
toutes les choses qui Sont au dessus de
nötre profession et de nôtre sexe, tout
ce que nous pouvons faire est de rendre
témoignage de la pureté de nôtre foil;
Nous déclarons très volontiers par nôtre
signature qu'étant Soumises avec un
profond respect a N. S. P. le Pape, et
n'ayant rien de Si précieux que la foi,
mous embrassons sincerement et de coeur
tout ce que Sa Sainteté et le Pape Inno-
cent X. en ont décidé, et rejetons toutes
les, erreurs qu'ils ont jugé y átre con-
traires,”
A.D. 1661. EPISCOPAL OPPOSITION TO THE FORMULARY. 455
maintained that no bishop who entertained a due respect for his
office could either sign, or require others to sign, the For-
mulary prescribed by the Assembly; inasmuch as that body
had no authority to dictate to the Church a new article of
faith, particularly an article consisting not of any divinely-
revealed truth, but of a mere historical fact. Pavillon wrote in
a similar strain to the king and the Assembly. Another of the
remonstrants was Henri Arnauld, Bishop of Angers, who in-
sisted, in a letter to the king, that for facts which are not
directly revealed, the Church has no right to demand religious
or “divine ‘’ faith; such absolute submission being due to the
Word of God alone. Godeau, Bishop of Wence, represented to
Louis that the so-called Jansenist heresy was nothing but a
phantom or chimera, invented by malicious persons for the pur-
pose of crushing those who differed from them in sentiment;
that the pretended Jansenists were sincere and Orthodox Catho-
lics; and that the Formulary, far from promoting unity, would
Only serve to aggravate, prolong, and embitter the conflict
which unhappily existed. Statements to the same effect were
made by the Bishops of Beauvais and Comminges. Most of the
above-named prelates applied likewise to the Pope for special
directions how to proceed under the circumstances; but the only
reply vouchsafed by his Holiness was to refer them to his brief
recently addressed to the Vicars-general of Paris.
The real views of the Ultramontane school as to the extent
of the infallibility of the Pope were curiously illustrated by a
thesis in divinity maintained at the Jesuit college of Clermont
on the 12th of December, 1661. It was thus expressed :
“Christ, when about to ascend into heaven, committed first to
Peter, and then to his successors, the Supreme government of
the Church, and invested them with the very same infallibility
which He Himself possessed, as often as they should speak ex
cathedrā. There is, consequently, in the Roman Church an infal-
lible judge of controversies of faith, even independently of a
General Council; and that in questions both of doctrine and of
fact. Hence, after the decrees of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.,
it may be believed with divine faith that the book entitled
the “Augustinus’ of Jansenius is heretical, and that the Five
Propositions were extracted from it, and were condemned in the
sense intended by the author.” Antoine Arnauld, in a vehement
456 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
pamphlet, denounced this extravagant doctrine to the bishops;
but neither the civil nor ecclesiastical authorities thought
proper to interfere. A few months later, however, the same
sentiment having been repeated in a thesis at the Sorbonne, and
again at the college of the Bernardins, the Parliament of Paris
took courage, and pronounced against the offenders with all its
ancient vigour. The first thesis was summarily suppressed; all
parties concerned in it were severely reprimanded, and proposi-
tions of that tendency strictly forbidden for the future. The
second offence was visited with still heavier penalties; the
Syndic of the Faculty being suspended for six months from the
exercise of his functions. The Sorbonne drew up on this
occasion a statement setting forth, in six articles, the well-
known tradition of the Gallican Church with regard to the
authority of the Pope. This document having been presented
to the king and the Parliament, a royal Ordonnance was pub-
lished, enjoining that the said articles should be registered by
all the Parliaments and Universities in the kingdom, together
with a prohibition to teach or allow any other doctrine on the
subject.” It must not be concealed, however, that this display
of Gallican Zeal coincided with certain political circumstances
which gave it peculiar point and emphasis. As often as the
public relations between the Courts of France and Rome
chanced to be disturbed, his Most Christian Majesty lost no time
in re-asserting those immemorial principles which circumscribed
the Pontifical jurisdiction in respect both of the temporalty
and the spiritualty within his dominions.
Louis had lately been compelled to demand satisfaction for
an insult offered to the Duke de Créqui, his ambassador at
Rome, by the Pope's Corsican guard. They had fired upon the
carriage of the ambassadress, and killed or wounded several of
her attendants. Upon this the king seized Avignon and the
county of the Venaissin, and ordered a body of troops to cross
the Alps and march upon Rome. An accommodation was
arranged, however, in the following year, upon terms deeply
mortifying to the Papal See. -
* D'Argentré, Collect. Judic, tom. six articles formed the basis of those
iii. p. 327. Ellies-Dupin, H. E. du promulgated by the famous Assembly
XVII. Siècle, tom. i. p. 149. D'Avrigny, of 1682.
Mém. Chromol., tom. ii. p. 420. These
A.D. 1662. NEGOCIATION FOR PEACE. 457
The same circumstances may, perhaps, serve to explain a
singular negociation which was undertaken about this period,
with a view to bring about a mutual understanding between the
antagonist parties in the Church, and thus to terminate the
controversy. The Jesuits, fearing for their own interests in case
the king should proceed to extremities in his quarrel with
Rome, may have thought it prudent to conciliate a party which
might at no distant day succeed to a position of great influence
and power,
Whatever the motive may have been, it is certain that,
towards the close of 1662, F. Annat, with the sanction of the
king, opened communications with Gilbert de Choiseul, Bishop
of Comminges, an intimate friend of the Arnaulds, and begged
him to confer with F. Ferrier, a learned Jesuit, professor of
theology at Toulouse, whom he would find anxiously desirous to
promote the good work of reconciliation.” A preliminary in-
terview took place accordingly between the bishop and the
Jesuit at Toulouse; and it was agreed, after reference to the
Jansenist leaders, that the proposed conferences should forthwith
commence, with an understanding that the Formulary should
be left entirely out of the question, and that nothing should be
demanded of the Jansenists that could offend their conscientious
convictions.
The bishop and Ferrier proceeded to Paris; and the king
gave permission to Arnauld, Singlin, Taignier, and the Abbé de
St. Cyran (M. de Barcos), who were still in concealment, to
reappear in the capital, with an assurance of perfect Safety
pending the conferences. They declined, however, to accept
this favour; and two divines of high reputation, La Lanne and
Girard, were deputed to act on this occasion on behalf of their
friends.
It was proposed on the part of the Jansenists, that they
should draw up five articles bearing on the points of doctrine
contained in the five condemned propositions, and that in these
articles they should express distinctly their own sentiments with
* According to Racine's account ing the appointment of confessor at
(Hist, de Port Royal, p. 199) the first court. Gerberon, on the other hand,
overtures came from F. Ferrier, whom asserts that the project of reunion was
he describes as an artful, ambitious started by the Bishop of Comminges.
man, actuated chiefly by the desire of (Histoire du Janservisme, tom. iii.
making himself conspicuous, and gain- p. 31.)
458 THE GALLſ CAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
regard to the aforesaid doctrines; if their views should be
accepted by the other side, all ground of dispute would disappear
at once, and nothing would remain to hinder the re-establish-
ment of peace. This was agreed to; and on the 23rd of
January, 1663, La Lanne and Girard produced a document in
which the controverted questions were treated in close accord-
ance with the system usually known as that of the Thomists—
which latter, while differing widely from that of the Moli-
nists, had been repeatedly approved by Popes and Councils,
and had always been held admissible in the Church. The new
Jansenist articles recognized the distinction between “grâce
actuelle” or “suffisante,” and “grâce efficace;” they repudiated
the notion of necessitant grace; and they declared that grace,
if short of effectual grace, may be resisted by the human will.”
These were large concessions; concessions which, had they been
made in good faith ten years before, might have averted untold
calamities from the Church of France. The affair looked
hopeful, and the good Bishop of Comminges already began to
congratulate himself on the success of his charitable enterprise.
F. Ferrier, on examining the Jansenist statement, took ex-
ception to certain expressions in the first article; but this diffi-
culty having been removed by the addition of a few words in
explanation, he declared himself perfectly satisfied; and as the
other articles were unobjectionable, he could not but confess
that the Jansenist doctrine as a whole coincided with that of
the Church. But instead of proceeding to concert measures for
a definite peace, the Jesuit now presented to La Lanne and
Girard five articles drawn up by himself, which contained, he
said, the sense in which the heretical Propositions had been
condemned by the Pope. These he proposed that the deputies
should abjure in writing, in testimony of their adhesion to the
sentence passed by the Holy See; in that case, he added, no
demand would be made upon them with regard to the question
of fact ; they would not be expected to declare that the here-
* “Secunda (gratia) ea est quam tum consentire, mec tamen, si absit gratia
excitantem, tum inefficacem, tum suf- efficax, unquam consentit; non defectu
ficientem idem significantibus verbis antecedentis potestatis, sed liberă sui
Vocant; huic were resistit ac remilitur ipsius in oppositum determinatione.”
voluntas, eamque eo effectu privat ad | See D'Argentré, Collect. Judic., tom.
quem excitat, et ad quem potestatem iii. p. 306.
largitur. Potest quidem illi voluntas
A.D. 1663. CONFERENCES WITH A WIEW TO PEACE. 459
tical doctrine was that of Jansenius, nor to subscribe his con-
demnation by name. The deputies complied without difficnlty;
and after this both parties appear to have looked forward. Con-
fidently to a final pacification.
But at the next meeting this fair prospect was overclouded
by a debate which arose upon the precise point where agreement
was utterly hopeless; namely, the necessity of condemning the
Propositions in the Sense intended by their author. The “sense
of Jansenius” had been for years the real apple of discord
between the rival parties; and it proved an insurmountable
obstacle to the success of the present negociation.
The Bishop of Comminges, finding that no progress was
made, and that, in spite of the express stipulation to the con-
trary at the commencement of the conferences, the question of
fact had become the prominent, indeed the sole, issue to be
decided,—devised another method of proceeding, by which he
conceived that an accommodation might still be effected. He
proposed that F. Ferrier should transmit to the Pope the five
articles of the Jansemists, together with a formula Setting forth
their profound respect for his Holiness, and their cordial sub-
mission to all the decisions of the Apostolic See. Ferrier, who
seems to have been personally sincere in desiring to make peace,
consented, but others of his Order interfered to oppose the
design, and intrigued without scruple to bring about a rupture
of the conferences; and the result was that when the deputies
next assembled, Ferrier told them plainly that no arrangement
was possible unless they would declare that they condemned the
Five Propositions in the sense specified by the Papal constitu-
tions; that is, the sense of Jansenius. This sacrifice they did not
feel at liberty to make; and in consequence the scheme of recon-
ciliation fell to the ground. The Bishop of Comminges, however,
at the desire of the Jansenist commissioners, despatched their
profession of faith to Rome, accompanied by an act of uncon-
ditional submission to the Pope's authority and judgment.
Alexander thereupon named a special congregation to examine
the articles, and they were quickly pronounced to be ambiguous,
illogical, and inadmissible. A brief was addressed to the French
prelates on the 29th of July, in which the Pope applauded their
Zeal for the truth, congratulated them on their success in
bringing the Jansenists to a better mind, and exhorted them to
460 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. XIV.
employ all the means at their command for carrying into
complete effect the decisions of the Holy See in the two consti-
tutions against Jansenius. -
La Lanne and Girard, when called upon to redeem their
promise by conforming themselves to the renewed démand of
the Holy Father as signified in his brief, placed in the hands
of the Bishop of Comminges a second declaration, signifying
that they rejoiced in the implied approbation of their doctrine
conveyed by the terms of the Papal brief, that they were ready
to sign a condemnation of the Five Propositions in any words
which his Holiness might prescribe, but that, as their act of
Submission did not bind them to anything repugnant to truth
and conscience, they could not, without distinction and qualifi-
cation, abjure the “sense of Jansenius.” The Bishop presented
this memorial to the king on the 24th of September, and then
withdrew, deeply grieved and mortified, to his remote diocese
in Languedoc. -
Such was the abortive issue of these conferences, which
Created a considerable sensation at the time. The inflexible
Antoine Arnauld, who profoundly distrusted the sincerity of
any overtures proceeding from the Jesuits, retired from the
negociation soon after its commencement; which circumstance
was in itself almost inevitably fatal to the success of the attempt.
Arnauld had persisted for so many years in an attitude of
stubborn antagonism, that the very notion of submission, though
On the easiest terms, was to him insupportable. Perhaps it is
not too much to say that he preferred strife to peace, at all
events if the latter were to be purchased by any semblance of
surrender to his adversaries. In vain the Bishop of Comminges
assured him that he was not asked to profess an internal belief
of anything from which his conscience revolted, but only to
defer to superior authority as a matter of external ecclesiastical
discipline. He replied that such distinctions were not to be
reconciled with his views of duty, and remained impracticable.”
Accounts of the Conferences were forthwith published by
both parties, abounding with mutual charges of misrepre-
sentation, deception, and calumny. Appeal was thereupon
made to the Bishop of Comminges, who, having acted as me-
* See Lettres d’Antoine Arnauld, Nos. clx, clxi.; tom. i. p. 476 et seqq.
A.D. 1664. THE FORMULARY ENFORCED BY ROYAL EDICT. 461
diator throughout, must have been better qualified than any
one else to determine on which side the truth lay; but that
prelate preserved a resolute silence, and thereby gave reason to
presume that his testimony, had he chosen to speak out, would
have been unfavourable to those with whose general sentiments
and policy he was known to sympathize.
The second declaration of the Jansenist commissioners was
laid before the royal “council of conscience,” and disallowed
as insufficient and evasive; whereupon the king summoned an
assembly of prelates to deliberate on the best means of carrying
into execution the late brief from Rome. Fifteen archbishops
and bishops met at Paris on the 2nd of October, 1663, and
determined (though they had obviously no right to dictate to
their colleagues) that no better course could be taken than to
insist on the immediate and universal signature of the Formu-
lary of the clergy. They besought the king to exert his
authority for the attainment of this end. Louis issued his
edict accordingly, and proceeded in person to the Parliament
on the 15th of April, 1664, to enforce its registration in due
form. By this decree his Majesty enjoined that the Formulary
should be signed by all ecclesiastics secular and regular, with-
out any privilege of appeal; that the benefices of those who
should not have signed it within the space of one month from
the publication of the edict should be ipso facto void; and that
no one should henceforth be admitted to any ecclesiastical pre-
ferment, nor to any degrees or offices in the Universities, nor
to make profession in any monastery, without having first
subscribed the test. He concluded with a general prohibition
of all books and writings already or hereafter to be published
contrary to the bulls of Innocent X. and Alexander VII.,
the orders of the Assembly of Clergy, and the decrees of the
Faculty of Theology of Paris.
The new Archbishop of Paris, having at length (April 20th,
1664) obtained his bulls and entered on his functions, pub-
lished a mandement enjoining the immediate signature of the
Formulary, in pursuance of the royal edict. Péréfixe, though
an obsequious courtier, was a man of pacific counsels, and
anxious to discover some expedient by which the king's com-
mands might be obeyed without doing violence to the conscien-
tious scruples of the Jansenists. With this view, he drew a
462 & TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
distinction in his mandement between the several kinds and
degrees of belief. No one, he observed, except through malice
or ignorance, could maintain that the Church had ever de-
manded for the fact of Jansenius a “divine” faith, such as is
claimed for the supernatural truths of revelation. All that
was asked was a “human * or “ecclesiastical” faith, implying
cordial submission of judgment to the Supreme spiritual all-
thority.” This, from such a quarter, was a most important
declaration, conceding substantially the point for which the Jan-
semists had all along contended, namely, that the decisions of the
Pope on matters of fact stood on different ground from his
definitions de fide; and condemning, moreover, those who held,
as the Jesuits notoriously did, that the Selfsame quality and
degree of faith is due to all decisions of the Apostolic See,
whether their subject-matter be fact or doctrine. It is strange
that, with the latitude of construction thus authorized by their
diocesan, the friends of Port Royal should have persisted in
opposing the required subscription to the Formulary; for they
had often professed themselves willing to sign as an act of
canonical obedience or discipline ; and the mandement of the
archbishop, though varying somewhat in terms, amounted in
reality to no more than this. They showed no disposition, how-
ever, to accept the olive-branch; on the contrary, they began
to write in a strain of caustic sarcasm against the newly-invented
theory of “human faith;” and Nicole, in particular, ridiculed
it without mercy in a series of letters entitled “Les Imagi-
naires,’ which appeared about this time, and formed a kind of
sequel to the ‘Provinciales’ of Pascal. &
The archbishop proceeded in person, on the 9th of June, to
Port Royal, attended by his vicar-general, and made an official
visitation of the monastery. He interrogated the nuns, replied
to their objections with much patience, and exerted all his
powers of argument and persuasion to reduce them to compli-
ance. But his endeavours were fruitless; he withdrew, after
intimating that three weeks would be allowed them for further
consideration, during which he hoped they would profit by the
instructions of two ecclesiastics specially appointed for this
purpose—Chamillard, a doctor of the Sorbonne, and Father
* D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronolog., tom. ii. p. 444.
A.D. 1664. ARCHBISHOP PEREFIXE AT PORT ROYAL. 463
Esprit of the Oratory. These divines proposed to the sister-
hood various forms of submission, expressed in general terms,
either of which would have satisfied the archbishop; but in-
superable objections were raised to each. At last the com-
munity adopted a declaration stating that they accepted with
sincere belief the doctrinal decision; and that with regard to
the fact, as they felt themselves incompetent to form any judg-
ment, they maintained the “respectful silence” which best
became their condition. They could not, in conscience, testify
by a public act that certain heresies were contained in a book
which they had never seen : a book, too, Written in Latin, of
which language they knew nothing.
On the 21st of August the archbishop made his second visit
to the convent of Port Royal at Paris. Having assembled the
community, he put the question to them individually, whether
they were willing to sign the Formulary according to his mande-
ment ; and finding them still resolute in their refusal, he
upbraided them sharply for their obstinacy, declared that,
“ though they might be pure as angels, they were proud as
devils,”—and ended by interdicting them from the use of the
Sacraments. Severe measures followed. In the course of a few
days the prelate again made his appearance at the monastery,
attended by the lieutenant-civil and other officers, with a
formidable array of exempts and archers. He went straight to
the chapterhouse, and there, reading from a list the names of
twelve of the principal nuns, the abbess among the number,
he ordered them to leave the convent forthwith, and enter the
carriages which were waiting for them at the gate.” Solemnly
protesting against this act of violence, they obeyed; and were
removed to other religious houses according to arrange-
ments made previously. They were replaced by sisters of the
order of the Visitation, and the Mère Louise Eugénie de Fon-
taine was appointed abbess. The ejected nuns made their appeal
to the Parliament against the proceedings of their diocesan,
but the Court interfered, and the affair was evoked to the cog-
nizance of the Council of State, where of course it was quietly
Suppressed.
The establishment at Port Royal des Champs was visited
* Four of them were members of the Arnauld family.
464 TEIE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
Some months later with the same penalties that had been in-
flicted on the house at Paris. Péréfixe, as a last resource, com-
missioned the famous Bossuet, at that time archdeacon and
Canon of Metz, to confer with the contumacious nuns, in the
hope that his eloquence might win them over to a more reason-
able mind. The accomplished abbé spared no pains to convince
them that, according to the terms of the archbishop's mande-
ment, they were not required to embrace the fact of Jansenius
by a conscious act of the understanding, but only to acquiesce
in the Pope's decision out of deference to his authority.” But
he laboured in vain; the sisters had become ambitious of the
honours of martyrdom; rather than yield an inch of ground to
their oppressors, they preferred incurring the extreme sentence
of excommunication, which was launched against them accord-
ingly, and remained in force for several years, until the “peace
of Clement IX.”
The signature of the Formulary, meanwhile, made compara-
tively little progress throughout France. The fearless Pavillon,
who deemed the whole proceeding uncanonical and illegal, and
could not reconcile his conscience to half-measures, Solemnly
prohibited its execution in his diocese, and even excommuni-
cated some of his clergy who, contrary to his orders, had taken
the test before the civil magistrates. For this he was denounced
to the Parliament, in a violent speech, by Omer Talon, the
advocate-general; and an arrêt of that body suppressed a
somewhat intemperate letter which he had written to the king.
It was stoutly maintained, by the opponents of the Formulary,
that the Pope himself disapproved the step taken by the
clergy in imposing it; that he had avoided all mention of it
in his briefs, and that his opinion of the measure was also
manifest from his own conduðt, since he had not thought
it necessary to exact any such test of Orthodoxy at Rome.
Louis XIV., finding himself embarrassed by these allegations,
requested the Pope to prescribe a new form of subscription, and
* Bossuet's Lettre awa, Religieuses de supposition, since the principal points
Port Royal was not published till five connected with their duty on the occa-
years after his death. The Abbé Le sion are there handled in so masterly a
Dieu (Jowrmal swr la vie de Bossuet) || style that submission could scarcely
states his belief that it was never for- have failed to follow in minds homestly
Warded to its destimation; and, as re- open to conviction.
gards the sisters, this is a claritable
A.D. 1665. . . THE BULL “REGIMINIS APOSTOLICI.” 46.5
to insist upon its execution by the bishops and clergy of France.
Nothing could be more acceptable to the Court of Rome than
such an application; for nothing could be better calculated to
support the pretensions of the See to universal dominion and
infallible authority. A bull was despatched to France without
delay, dated February 15, 1665, embodying a Formulary almost
identical in terms with that of the bishops,” and enjoining that
it should be signed universally within three months after its
publication; in default of which the recusants would be pro-
ceeded against with the utmost rigour prescribed by the canons.f
The bull was confirmed by a royal declaration, and registered
in Parliament on the 29th of April.
The bishops now felt bound to proceed in earnest; and in
every diocese measures were taken for enforcing subscription.
But the mandements issued for this purpose varied consider-
ably ; some prelates demanded compliance “purement et
simplement,” without any distinction between the droit and
the fait; others expressly sanctioned such distinction, requir-
ing a submission by “divine faith ” for the doctrine, and of
external respect, as a matter of discipline, for the fact. The
Archbishop of Paris, whose theory of “human faith” had by
this time sunk into general discredit, abandoned that term on
the present occasion, and adopted the ambiguous phrase of
“sincere acquiescence;” which might be construed by Ultra-
montanes as equivalent to “divine faith,” while Jansenists
might take advantage of it to subscribe the test without any
real belief at all.
The courageous Bishop of Alet, disdaining to equivocate under
such circumstances, published a mandement on the 1st of June,
in which his views as to the limits of Church authority were set
forth with transparent clearness. Truths revealed by God, of
which the Church is the ordained guardian, must be accepted on
her testimony with an entire subjection of the reason and of all
* The following is the text of the sensu ab eodem authore intento, prout
Formulary as prescribed by Alexander
VII. :—“Ego N. Constitutioni Apos-
tolicæ Innocentii X., datae die 31 Mai,
1653, et Constitutioni Alexandri VII.,
datae, 16 Octobris, 1656, summorum
Pontificum, me subjicio, et quinque
propositiones ex Cornelii Jansenii libro,
Cui nomen Augustinus, excerptas, et in
WOL. I.
illas per dictas Constitutiones Scdes
Apostolica damnavit, sincelo animo re-
jicio ac damno, et ita juro. Sic me
Deus adjuvet, et haec sancta Dei Evan-
gelia.”
t See the bull “Regiminis Apos-
tolici,” in the Mémoires du C'ergé de
France, tom. i. p. 365.
2 H
466 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
the faculties of the mind; but with regard to other truths, not
So revealed, God has not provided any infallible arbiter; so that
When the Church declares that certain propositions are con-
tained in a given book, or that such and such is the meaning
of a particular author, she acts only by human knowledge, and
may be mistaken. For decisions of this kind the Church cannot
require positive internal belief; nevertheless the faithful are
not permitted to question or impugn her judgments, which in
all cases must be treated with submission, for the preservation
of due order and discipline. The high character and saintly
life of Pavillon added infinite weight to his pastoral instructions.
His sentiments were shared by other prelates, particularly by
Henri Arnauld, Bishop of Angers, Nicolas Choart de Buzanval,
Bishop of Beauvais, and François de Caulet, Bishop of Pamiers;
these issued mandements of precisely similar import, as did
also the Bishops of Noyon and Laon; but the two latter, on
receiving notice of the displeasure of the Court, retracted, and
adopted a tone of exact accordance with the Papal bull. An
arrêt of the Council of State, on the 20th of July, cancelled
the mandements of the four refractory bishops, and forbade the
clergy to obey them.*
It was determined to take judicial proceedings against the
prelates who had thus boldly constituted themselves the apostles
of Jansenism ; but this was an affair of considerable delicacy
and difficulty. According to Roman jurisprudence, the Pope
Was the sole judge of bishops; on the other hand, it was one
of the most cherished of the Gallican liberties, that bishops in
France could only be tried, in the first instance, before their
metropolitan and his comprovincials.f Application having been
made to the Pope on the subject by the French ambassador at
Rome, his Holiness proposed to name the Archbishop of Paris
and two other prelates as delegates for hearing the cause; but
the king decidedly objected to this method of adjudication, as
an invasion of the privileges which he was bound to defend.
After a tedious negociation, it was at length arranged that the
Pope should nominate a commission of nine prelates to proceed
to the trial of their colleagues; that seven should be competent
to act; that the president should have power to appoint Sub-
* Clemenget, Hist. Gen. de Port Royal, tom. vi. p. 320.
f Mémoires du Clergé de France, tom. ii. p. 422, 456 et seqq.
A.D. 1667. ACCESSION OF POPE CLEMENT IX. 467
stitutes in the room of those who might decline to act; and
that the accused should not be at liberty either to challenge
the judges or to appeal from their decision.
The mandements of the four bishops were at the same time
denounced by a decree of the Congregation of the Index; upon
which the bishops of Languedoc wrote to the king in terms of
energetic remonstance against the encroachments of the Court
of Rome on the rights of the episcopate, and Louis replied by
assuring them that he would always uphold their lawful juris-
diction and the liberties of the Gallican Church.
The prosecution of the bishops was suspended by the death
of Alexander VII., which occurred on the 20th of May, 1667.
Cardinal Giulio Rospigliosi, who succeeded him under the
name of Clement IX., was known to be of moderate opinions
and disposed to a pacification; and measures were immediately
concerted in France for taking advantage of this favourable
change of circumstances. The Jansenists had lately made
two proselytes of exalted rank, the Princess of Conti and
the Duchess of Longueville: the former a niece of Cardinal
Mazarin, married to a prince of the blood royal; the latter,
Once the restless intrigante of the Fronde, but now a remorseful
penitent, under the spiritual guidance of Singlin. Through the
intervention of these noble ladies their adopted party gained
the protection of the ministers Le Tellier and De Lionne, who
at that time were high in the confidence of Louis XIV. They
represented the case strongly to the king, dwelling especially
on the imminent risk of a schism in the Church if matters
should be pressed to extremity against the four bishops. Louis
allowed it to be understood that he should be glad if means
could be devised for effecting an accommodation; upon which
the Archbishop of Sens (De Gondrin), and Felix Vialart, Bishop
of Châlons, offered their services as mediators for this purpose.
Their first step was to draw up a respectful letter to the
Pope in defence of their accused brethren, which was sub-
scribed, through their exertions, by nineteen prelates.” This
* The following extract contains its mandatis quod vel à Catholicæ doc-
substance:—“Quod ergo ab ipsá (fide) trinae normä vel à Romanae sedis reve-
quidam ipsos in suis de subscriptione rentiã tantillum deflectat? Novum et
mandatis discessisse criminantur, alien- inauditum apud nos nonnulli dogma.
issima ab ipsis, Beatissime Pater, et procuderunt, Ecclesiae nempe decretis,
inamis suspicio est. Quid enim in illis quibus quotidiana mec revelata divini-
2 H 2
468 THE GALLICAN CHURCH.
CHAP. XIV.
document assured his Holiness that the four bishops were un-
justly charged with want of deference to the Holy See, since
their doctrine as to the judgment of the Church on unrevealed
facts was none other than that of Cardinals Baronius, Bellar-
mine, and Palavicini, writers held in the highest estimation at
Rome. If this was an error, it was not peculiar to the prelates
in question, but was held by their colleagues, and, indeed, by
the whole Church. Many French bishops had expressed the
very same sentiments to their clergy, sentiments which re-
mained on record in their diocesan registries, although not
published. The letter concluded with an eloquent appeal to
Clement to signalise his accession to the Pontificate by healing
the wounds of the distracted Church, an achievement which
would cover his name with immortal glory.
The same prelates proceeded to address a letter to the king,
setting forth that the doctrine of the Four Bishops was that
which the Church had uniformly held in all ages, and that
they could not be prosecuted in the manner proposed without
a direct infraction of the Gallican liberties, and without de-
grading the bishops into mere vassals of the Pope. This pro-
duction was denounced by the king to the Parliament (doubt-
less at the instigation of the Jesuit Annat), upon which an arrêt
appeared for its suppression, and threatening penal measures
against those who, by “unlawful cabals and assemblies,” caused
such demonstrations. A similar course was taken with a mani-
festo from the four bishops themselves addressed to the whole
French episcopate, in which they complained bitterly of the
oppressive treatment they had met with, and entreated their
tius facta decidumtur, certam et infalli- ipsam a fidelibus exigere quam ut sua.
bilem constare veritatem, adeoque ipsa.
mon minus quam revelata in Scripturis
et traditione dogmata fide esse te-
menda. Hoc Verô dogma, Beat. Pater,
quod ab omnibus antiquis recentibus-
que theologis damnatum est, ex prae-
decessoris vestri constitutionibus iidem
qui invexerunt stabilire mitebantur.
Huic malo Tut occurrerent, prædicti epis-
copi oppositam manifesto huic errori
doctrinam in mandatis suis exposue-
runt, humama Scilicet nec divinitus
revelata facta mon omnimodă et infalli-
bili certitudine ab Ecclesiá definiri,
ideoque in hujusmodi rebus nihil aliud
decreta reverenter, ut par est, habeant.
Quid in häc doctrină in Romanam
Sedem irreligiosum ? Cüm mon modo a
Summis Apostolicæ sedis veneratoribus
ejusque acerrimis windicibus, Baronio,
Bellarmino, Palavicino asserta et tra-
dita sit . . . Ita sentire si criminosum
existinetur, non hoc proprium ipsorum,
Sed Omnium noström, imo totius Ec-
clesiae crimen fuerit. Non defuerunt
nec primi nec postremi nominis Epis-
Copi, qui idem prorsus quod illa prae-
Stiterunt, in publicis actis, sive tabulis
in quibus eandem late doctrinam ex-
plicaruut.” -
THE FOUR BISHOPS TO THE GALLICAN EPISCOPATE. 469
brethren to unite in a firm resistance to this attack upon the
privileges of their Order. The paper is of considerable length;
it is replete with learning and forcible argument, and may be
said to exhaust the subject of which it treats. The bishops
appeal to the records of antiquity, to the canons of Antioch,
Sardica, and the celebrated Councils of Africa in the time of
Popes Zosimus, Coelestine, and Boniface, in proof of the great
principle that bishops are to be judged by the metropolitan and
his suffragans assembled in provincial Synod. They shew that
this was confirmed by the Gallican Code received by Charle-
magne from Pope Adrian I. ; and, further, that it is implied
even by the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. They cite, likewise,
the Articles published by the Sorbonne in 1663, one of which
condemns any infraction of the ecclesiastical laws of the realm,
and, in particular, any attempt to depose bishops contrary to
the regulations laid down in the canons. “We acknowledge,”
they say, “the pre-eminence of the Holy See, and the Supreme
dignity of the successor of Peter; but we also know that we
are all successors of the Apostles; that the Pope is our Superior
by Divine right, but that he is not the only bishop. We know
that we ourselves, equally with him, have received our au-
thority from Jesus Christ himself; and that the Holy Ghost has
appointed each one of us to govern in the quality of His vicars
(as all antiquity bears witness) that portion of the Church
which is confided to our care.”" This circular was suppressed
by the Council of State on the 4th of July, 1668; and the
bishops were commanded to address themselves to the king
upon all matters concerning the interests of the clergy, with-
out putting forth public statements upon such subjects except
with his previous permission.
Notwithstanding these discouraging circumstances, the nego-
ciation for restoring peace proceeded; but it was conducted
with extreme caution, and was kept a profound secret from
Father Annat and the Ultramontanes, who would have strained
every nerve, as on the former occasion, to ruin the scheme.
For the same reason it was carefully concealed from the Arch-
bishop of Paris; for, as a member of the Council of Conscience,
he could hardly have avoided mentioning it to his Jesuit col-
* Sec Varet, Relation de la Paia de Clement IX., tom, ii. p. 19.
470 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
leagues. The Nuncio Bargellini, Archbishop of Thebes, had
lately arrived in France, furnished with ample powers on the
part of the Pope; and in his presence anxious consultations
were now held as to the best mode of arranging the terms of
reconciliation. Besides De Gondrin and Vialart, the Bishop
of Laon, afterwards so well known as Cardinal d’Estrées, rendered
important service, at this critical moment, to the cause of
peace.
It was no easy task to mediate between two parties, neither
of whom was willing to make the very slightest concession or
sacrifice. The Pope, it was evident, could not recede from his
demand of an absolute and unreserved acceptance of the Formu-
lary; the bishops, on the other hand, positively declined to
subscribe it without making a clear distinction between the
droit and the fait. Various plans were discussed and aban-
doned. At last it was proposed that the bishops, without
being required to retract their mandements, should sign the
Formulary afresh, as if they had taken no steps in the matter
before, and should cause it to be signed by their clergy ; that
any explanatory remarks which they might wish to make
should be made by a procès-verbal at their diocesan Synods,
such written statements not to be published, but to be de-
posited in the registry of each diocese; and that they should
afterwards join in a letter to the Pope, informing him of this
new act of dutiful submission to his authority. This expedient
was approved by the Nuncio, accepted, on his recommendation,
by the Pope, and ultimately adopted.
The composition of the proposed letter to the Pope was
entrusted to Arnauld and Nicole, who acquitted themselves
with all their usual ability. The draft was submitted to the
Ministers, and by them to the king; the Nuncio made some
slight alterations, and it was then signed by himself and the
Archbishop of Sens; upon which this memorable transaction
was deemed complete. It remained, however, to obtain the
personal adhesion of the four prelates; and here, much to
the alarm of the negociators, the Bishop of Alet proved for
Some time intractable. Courier after courier was despatched to
urge him to compliance, but in vain. At last he yielded to the
importunate entreaties of the Bishop of Comminges, Antoine
Arnauld, and other friends, and appended his signature on the
A.D. 1668. LETTER OF THE FOUR BISHOPS TO CLEMENT IX. 471
10th of September, 1668. The other prelates assented without
difficulty.
The bishops represented, in this famous document,” that,
“having learned that with regard to the manner of executing
the constitution of Pope Alexander and subscribing the Formu-
lary, many French bishops had followed a line of conduct
differing from their own and more agreeable to his Holiness,
they had deemed it right to imitate them in this particular,
having nothing more nearly at heart than to contribute to
the peace and union of the Church; that they had, therefore,
assembled their diocesan Synods, and prescribed a fresh sub-
scription, in which they themselves had joined; that they had
given the same instructions to their clergy that had been given
by the bishops their colleagues; that they had enforced the
same deference to the constitutions of the Holy See that had
been required in other dioceses; and that, as they had always
been united to their episcopal brethren by an identity of doc-
trinal sentiment, so they were now in accordance with them in
point of discipline and mode of proceeding.” They concluded
with an elaborate protestation of unqualified submission to
the chair of St. Peter and of respect for the Holy Father
personally. -
In the procès-verbal made by the Bishop of Alet at his
diocesan Synod, held on the 15th of September, he explained
to the clergy that their subscription of the Formulary implied
“a sincere, entire, and unreserved condemnation of all the false
doctrine which the Popes and the Church had condemned in
the Five Propositions, so as to profess no other doctrine on that
head than that of the Catholic and Roman Church.” More-
over, that the doctrine of St. Augustine and St. Thomas on
grace “efficacious by itself” is not to be held comprised in the
* The letter runs thus in the ori- guit eorum institutum imitari; quam-
ginal :—“Cum in exequendā decessoris
vestri de subscribendà fidei Formulá
Constitutione, multi Gallicani episcopi,
nobiscum licet sensibus conjunctissimi,
eam disciplinae formam amplexi sint
quam Sanctitati vestrae acceptionem
fuisse intelleximus, nos, quibus nihil
est antiquius quâm paci unitatique con-
Sulere, et nostram erga Sedem Apos-
tolicam reverentiam testificari, non pin-
obrem congregatā, sicut illi, Diaecesanā
Synodo, et imperată nová, subscrip-
tione, nos insubscripsimus; quae Suis
ipsi clericis tradiderunt, nostris tradidi- .
mus; quod in Apostolicas Constitu-
tiones injunxerunt, injunximus; pror-
Susque nos ipsis, ut pridem doctrimã, ita
nunc in häc disciplinae formā con-
junximus.” .
472 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
false doctrine so condemned, according to the repeated declara-
tions of the Popes themselves; and lastly, that with regard to
the fact enunciated in the Formulary, their subscription sig-
nified only submission of respect and discipline, which consisted
in not opposing the Pontifical decision, and preserving silence;
since the Church, being not infallible as to facts of this descrip-
tion, did not pretend, by her own sole authority, to compel her
children to believe them. The other bishops expressed them-
selves in almost the same terms.”
Clement IX., by a brief addressed to the king on the 8th
of October, declared himself satisfied with the conduct of the
four prelates, on the understanding that they had submitted
“by a sincere acceptance of the Formulary.” Thereupon an
arrêt of the Council of State (October 23, 1668), after reciting
such submission, announced that, since the Pope was Satisfied,
the king was satisfied also ; ordered that the Papal constitu-
tions should continue to be inviolably observed throughout the
kingdom; and that all proceedings in contravention of them
should be considered null and void. The king, moreover, for-
bade all persons henceforth to attack or provoke one another
by using the opprobrious terms of “heretic,” “Jansenist,”
“semi-Pelagian,” or other party appellations; nor was any-
thing to be published concerning the contested questions, or
injurious to the reputation of those who had taken part in
them, under pain of exemplary punishment.
These events were hailed with the utmost satisfaction and
joy by all classes except those whose interest lay in preventing
the restoration of peace. Antoine Arnauld emerged forthwith
from his retirement, was presented to the Nuncio, and after-
wards, by his nephew Pomponne, to the king at St. Germain,
where he met with a gracious reception. De Sacy, who had
been immured for upwards of two years in the Bastille, was
* Gerberon, Hist. Gen. du Jansenisme, and the State. “As to the welfare
tom. iii. p. 177 et Seqq.
# We learn from D. Clemenget (Hist.
Gén. de P. R., tom. vi. p. 361) that
F. Annat, as soon as the result of the
negociation was announced, hastened to
the king, and strove to persuade him
that any such arrangement must needs
be deeply prejudicial both to religion
of religion,” replied Louis somewhat
coldly, “that is the Pope's affair; if he
is Satisfied, you and I are bound to be
so likewise. And with regard to the
interests of the State, I recommend you
not to trouble yourself much on that
score; I will take care that whatever is
necessary shall be done.”
A.D. 1668. THE “PEACE OF CLEMENT IX,” 473
set at liberty, introduced at Court, and became, together with
Arnauld, an object of general and enthusiastic admiration.
The famous preacher Desmares reappeared in the pulpit of
St. Roch. The interdict was removed from Port Royal, upon a
petition from the sisters to the Archbishop, which contained an
act of submission in terms dictated by the prelate himself.
The Solitaires, having no further cause for concealment, re-
paired to their former haunts in the valley of Chevreuse; and
Madame de Longueville, who was now saluted by the Jansenists
as the “mother of the Church,” established herself in a mansion
which she had built close to the monastery. The King nomi-
nated as abbess of Port Royal a nun called Dorothée Perdreau,
one of the few who had signed the Formulary when it was
resisted by the rest of the community in 1664.
Whether Clement IX, really believed that the Four Bishops
had accepted the Formulary without restriction or distinction,
is a question which has been warmly debated. It appears
that he was not informed beforehand of the arrangement by
which they were to make a written explanation of their views
in the diocesan Synods; indeed, if this condition had not been
concealed from him, it is difficult to understand how the nego-
tiation could have proved successful. On the other hand, the
bishops stated in their letter that they had adopted the same
line of action with their nineteen brethren who had addressed
the Pope in their favour; and it was perfectly well known
that these prelates recognised a distinction between the fait
and the droit, though no mention of that circumstance had
been made in their public mandements. There can be no doubt
that Clement regarded the whole affair more or less in the light
of a compromise; and that, accordingly, he thought it right
to accept the act of submission in the sense in which he had
demanded it, without inquiring into further details. No sooner,
however, was the event made public, than it began to be
rumoured that the bishops had acted insincerely; that they
had pretended to give Satisfaction to the Nuucio and the Pope
by unqualified submission, whereas they had clandestinely
renewed that very distinction between the droit and the fait
which had been so often and so positively condemned.” It
* Ellies-Dupin, II. I. du XVII, siècle, tom. i. liv. iii.
VOL. I. 2 I
474 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. CHAP. XIV.
was not long before these complaints reached the ears of the
Pope; and he at once instructed the Nuncio to investigate
the matter thoroughly, and to exact from the bishops a cer-
tificate in due form that they had subscribed the Formulary,
and caused it to be signed, in all sincerity, in conformity with
the constitutions of his predecessors.” To this they consented
readily, nor was there anything to prevent their doing so. The
very means by which the arrangement had been arrived at was
the substitution of the phrase “a sincere acceptance " for that
of “an acceptance pure and simple.” Doubtless they had signed
in sincerity, for the explanation appended to their act of sub-
scription had been made for the sole purpose of enabling them
to sign with a safe conscience; but it is no less certain that
they retracted nothing whatever of their previously expressed
opinions; and that, whether with or without the Pope's conni-
vance, they availed themselves of a saving clause which effectu-
ally sheltered their long-cherished conviction with regard to
the “fact of Jansenius.” -
By way of a further guarantee to his Holiness, the Bisho
of Châlons executed a formal document, declaring that the
four bishops and their clergy had acted with perfect good faith;
had condemned, without exception or reserve, all the errors
which the Church had censured in the five Propositions; and
with regard to the fact, had rendered to the Holy See all due
deference and submission, according to the doctrine on that
point taught by the greatest theologians of all ages. This
was likewise attested by the signature of Antoine Arnauld, as
representative of the Port Royalist divines.
Having received this authentic declaration, Clement con-
ceived that no further ground existed for questioning the
uprightness of the bishops in the transaction; he, therefore,
addressed a brief to them, dated January 19th, 1669, which
is regarded as the official ratification of the “Peace of Cle-
ment TX.” His Holiness alluded to certain current reports
connected with their act of submission, which had made it
necessary to proceed with caution in the affair; and observed
* CEuvres d'Arnauld, tom, xxv, p. Relation de ce qui s'est passé, &c.
125, - D'Avrigny, Mém. Chronol., tom. iii.
f B. Racine, Hist. Eccles. Varet, p. 78.
A.D. 1669. THE “ PEACE OF CLEMENT IX,” 475
that he could never have permitted any sort of restriction or
exception in the signature, being strongly attached to the con-
stitutions of his predecessors. But, after the renewed testi-
monies which had reached him of their perfect sincerity and
obedience, he could no longer withhold the assurance of his
paternal satisfaction; he therefore transmitted to them, with
much affection, the apostolical benediction.*
In order to commemorate the happy termination of this
lengthened conflict, a medal was struck at the mint, bearing on
one side the head of Louis XIV., and on the other a book
lying open on an altar, across which were the keys of St. Peter
and the royal sceptre Saltierwise; above was the holy Dove
surrounded by rays, with the legend “Gratia et pax à Deo;”
at the foot of the altar ran the motto, “Ob restitutam Ecclesiae
concordiam.” -
It is hardly to be wondered at, but not the less to be re-
gretted, that the Jansenists betrayed, in their hour of triumph,
feelings of boastful exultation which might have been far more
wisely suppressed. With singular bad taste they proclaimed in
the most public manner that the conduct of Clement IX. was
inconsistent with, and condemnatory of, that of his prede-
cessors; that he had sanctioned a mode of subscription which
they had denounced as fraudulent and hypocritical; and that
the same persons who for years past had been branded as
heretics for refusing to believe that the five Propositions were
taught by Jansenius, were now acknowledged by the Pope, the
bishops, and the King of France to be Orthodox Catholics,
although they maintained precisely the same sentiments as
before, and had never made any statements or admissions
which they had not been perfectly ready to make at any period
of the controversy. Such was the main purport of a ‘History of
the Pacification of the Church,' put forth under the auspices
of the party by an ecclesiastic named Waret, vicar-general to
the Archbishop of Sens; of another work, with the same title,
by Father Quesnel, of the Oratory; and of the ‘Phantôme du
Jansénisme,’ a treatise from the pen of Arnauld himself.
Clement IX. Survived scarcely a year the celebrated act
* D'Argentré, Collect. Judic., tom. iii. p. 337.
476 THE GALLICAN CEIURCH. CHAP. XIV.
of amnesty which bears his name. He died December 9th,
1669, and was succeeded, after a few months, by Cardinal
Altieri, who took the title of Clement X. The following year
witnessed a change in the government of the diocese of Paris:
Archbishop Péréfixe expired on the 31st of December, 1670,
and was replaced by François de Harlai, Archbishop of Rouen,
a man of considerable learning and administrative talent, but of
harsh temperament and indifferent morals.
END OF WOL. I.
/2%.
1.0NDON : ['It INTED BY WILLIAM CLOWES AND SONS, STAMEORD STR1. CT,
A N D C) IA IIING CIRO.SS,
DEC 8 1941
2^
2
-zº.;x-wren-2
*** A.º.º. ºf , -, -, -- 2:…S.
- - - - - - &6.--> -- . .
, 2.
z
...ºws e--——— -- . . . . 2


º, º sº-
- ſº
* - sº sº e º 4 & 5 º' ºr . .'; ºr
* * * : * * * * * * * * * * * *
fº
wº gº • * * * * * *
a , ºr
*** ****
sº
tº º ºr -., - w . . . .
sº gº ºr “… * * *
2 - “...º * *...* -
** * º “ .
***, * * rºws tº
whº wº ** **, * * *
tººk º' ºw
is a sº …s ºf sº, sº º
* . -
ºw ... we tº sº a wºn tº a . . . .
tº *-* * * * * * * * * ****
* *-* was . . sº tº . . . . .
tº “. . . * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
:** : * * * * * * **** * * * *
- , , ºr a sº ºn.º.º.º.º.
- “...º s ººg. a
sº sº:
* * ****** * * º
º tº . Fº
# ***** **
***** ***** **
ºrs fºr tº:
*** ****** * * * ***.*
tº tº
º
- rº.
stºº sº strº i !
+ Fºx's
**t
Rºº.
słº,4 §§
| | f : *** ºw, s.
*** * * *** ***.
* : * .* * * sº tº
* * * * * * * * * * * **** ***... ."
* * * * *** f * §: sº wººt-cºars we
- * * * * * * # * * * *** * *
º
- ºf 4 tº wrºttº.
-- tº º ºs i º ºs-tº- a 's
-- . . ººs º-'º., ºr
tº
- ºº sº
A. ſº
º
º
* *
* : * * *
a a .
* * * : * ~ *
* tº sº was
'º's wºrt's tº w
*** *** **** * * * ***** *
& ºt * * * * * * *=~ * * *
*** * * * * * * * * * * * ~ *.*.*.*.***
stººd as * * * * * -
a *, *, * * * * . .
* * *** *
ºt's sº º sº.
# - " ' ". . * ***
* * *** - sº sº; tº sº.
* *
º
* * * * * * *
sº tº sº tº” ºf
tº ºr a tº r- ºr
* : * * * * * * : * ~ *
fºr 4 ; ºr * * *ſ
M:
**
º
º
#.
º
# -
1 *
*…*.*
-
# 4
Asºº’s “...
- * , º
* * * * * * * *
5
* * *
º, “ ”
* →
*...* * r * ~ *