CHRISTMAS HYMN.

BY POPE ST. DAMASUS.[127]

Christe potens rerum, redeuntis conditor ævi,Vox summi sensusque Dei, quem fundit ab altâMente Pater, tantique dedit consortia regni,Impia tu nostræ domuisti crimina vitæ,Passus corporeâ mundum vestire figurâ,Affarique palam populos, hominemque fateri.Virginei tumuere sinus, innuptaque materArcano obstupuit compleri viscera partu,Auctorem paritura suum. Mortalia cordaArtificem texere poli, mundique repertorPars fuit humani generis, latuitque sub unoPectore, qui totum latè complectitur orbem;Et qui non spatiis terræ, non æquoris undis,Nec capitur cœlo, parvos confluxit in artus.Quin et supplicii nomen nexusque subisti,Ut nos surriperes letho, mortemque fugaresMorte tuâ: mox æthereas evectus in auras,Purgatâ repetis lætum tellure parentem.

Translation.

Christ, sovereign of all things that be,Wisdom and Word of God! we seeA new-born world spring forth from thee.God born of God, and who dost shareHis reign supreme, how didst thou bearThe vesture of our dust to wear?Unto our race thou didst belong—Didst speak and mingle with the throng,To bear—to triumph over wrong.A Virgin's bosom did accordRepose to Him whom she adored;In wonder she brought forth her Lord.Who spread aloft the heavens, the day,Who built the world—lo! clothed in clayHid 'neath one human bosom lay.Whose hands the universe uphold,Whom earth, nor seas, nor heavens enfold—Lo! compassed by a mortal mould.What anguish didst thou undergo;What woe, to shelter us from woe;What death, from death to save us so;Ere from a world redeemed by graceThou didst return aloft through spaceTo seek the Blessed Father's face.

Christ, sovereign of all things that be,Wisdom and Word of God! we seeA new-born world spring forth from thee.

God born of God, and who dost shareHis reign supreme, how didst thou bearThe vesture of our dust to wear?

Unto our race thou didst belong—Didst speak and mingle with the throng,To bear—to triumph over wrong.

A Virgin's bosom did accordRepose to Him whom she adored;In wonder she brought forth her Lord.

Who spread aloft the heavens, the day,Who built the world—lo! clothed in clayHid 'neath one human bosom lay.

Whose hands the universe uphold,Whom earth, nor seas, nor heavens enfold—Lo! compassed by a mortal mould.

What anguish didst thou undergo;What woe, to shelter us from woe;What death, from death to save us so;

Ere from a world redeemed by graceThou didst return aloft through spaceTo seek the Blessed Father's face.

Constantina E. Brooks.

A curious book has lately appeared in France. It is not so much the production of the pen as the result of the judicious industry of M. Gérin, judge of the civil tribunal of Paris. In his introduction to the work he says that it is not his intention to write a book, but to put together materials for history and for the better understanding of a vital question, which has agitated the French world especially for three hundred years—the infallibility of the sovereign pontiff and his superiority to a general council of bishops. It would be difficult to exaggerate the speculative value as well as the practical importance of this doctrine. M. Gérin has rendered an inestimable service to historic truth and to the church by showing the origin of the so-called Gallican doctrine, which denied the infallibility of the pontiff, contrary to the practice and opinion that had prevailed among Christians for fifteen or sixteen hundred years. It is not our intention to prove the possessive or prescriptive right of this doctrine. This has been amply done in our day in English by several authors, while the work of the brothers Balleriniand Zaccharia's reply to Hontheim, the well-known Anti-Febronius, are open to the study of the learned. What we shall do will be to follow M. Gérin in showing the base origin of a teaching which no array of brilliant names can make legitimate.

At the outset we acknowledge the difficulty of the task. The work is so tersely and so logically compiled that one is at a loss how to break in upon so connected a recital, lest it should impair the effect of what he selects, by detaching it from its antecedents as well as from its consequents. But as all may not, at least for some time, have it in their power to read a translation of this interesting volume, we shall risk something for their information.

It has been commonly supposed that the Gallican doctrine was generally held by the French clergy during the reign of Louis XIV., and that in ordering it to be taught throughout his kingdom that sovereign only seconded the desire of his prelates and people. Never has a more unfounded idea been foisted upon credulity. No one ever heard of any such doctrine before the Chancellor Gerson at the Council of Constance hesitatingly broached it, in order to apply it, if possible, as a remedy and preventive of schism in the church. Like all opinions not well ventilated and examined, it found some who favored it, and at the schismatical assembly of Basle it acquired a number of followers. These, however, were soon obliged to yield; and in the Council of Florence a dogmatic decree was drawn up and adopted by the fathers, and confirmed by the sovereign pontiff, which declared the latter to be possessed of thefull and supreme jurisdiction of Peter, and the doctor or teacher of the universal church—a phrase that implied the infallibility of the pope; for a teacher is rightly so called only when he possesses the principles of his branch in such a way as to impart the degree of certainty peculiar to it. The church possesses the assistance of Christ, and is, therefore, infallible; and the organ or teacher of that church must have that same assistance which shall make him infallible. Otherwise we would have the, to say the least, strange consequence that ordinarily the church is liable to be misled; extraordinarily only—for councils must from their nature be unusual—is she to be regarded as free from error. It should be borne in mind that this definition of the œcumenical synod,A.D.1439, was made after due consultation; for when Eugenius IV. had caused his rights and prerogatives to be discussed before him by the Greek and Latin theologians, the Greeks, on leaving the presence of the pontiff, went to the emperor of Constantinople, then in Florence, and renewed before him the examination of the question. The result was, that they did not oppose the teaching of the papal doctors, but merely required two rights for their party: one, that no council should be called without the emperor; and the other, that in case of appeal the patriarchs should not be obliged to present themselves for judgment, but that legates should be sent into the province in question to try the cause. Not a word was said against the doctrines. The pope refused to grant these requests, and the emperor broke off negotiations. Still, through the mediation of influential prelates on both sides, they were resumed again immediately; and the Greek fathers acknowledged the Roman pontiff "locum gerentem et vicarium Christi, pastorem et doctorem omnium Christianorum, regentem et gubernantem Dei Ecclesiam"—to hold the place of Christ and to be his vicar, the pastor and doctor of allChristians, the ruler and head of the church. A few days afterward, the formal dogmatic definition was given by the united fathers of both churches, confirmed by the pope, and subscribed by him, by the cardinals, the emperor John Palœologus, and the Greek and Latin fathers of the council, with the exception of one, Mark, Bishop of Ephesus, whose bad faith in quoting the Greek manuscripts was accidentally made known to the whole council. His servant had erased the wrong passage, which fact the bishop did not discover until he was reading the code in public. The words of the definition are these:

"We define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff hold the primacy throughout the whole world; that the same Roman pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles, and the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, and the father and doctor of all Christians; that to him, in blessed Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ full power to feed, rule, and govern the universal church, as is contained, also, in the acts of œcumenical councils and in the sacred canons."

It was impossible for Gallican theologians to ignore the force of thesekat' hon eropon words. To elude it they had recourse to the last phrase, "asis contained in the acts of œcumenical councils and in the sacred canons," and appealed to tradition to explain the meaning of the fathers of Florence. Their meaning, however, is clear from what they determined on a few days before the decision. In their written declaration that phrase is not found. Moreover, the phrase itself is in corroboration of the decision; for in reality tradition bears out fully the doctrine it contains. The Greek text of Cardinal Bessarion has this phrase,κατ ὁν ερόπον—"according to the manner"—and it is this that the Gallic doctors thought favored them. This wording does not, however, alter the sense we have given. With regard to the phrase itself, learned men, and among them the author ofAnti-Febronius, state that in the original document such an appendage had no existence whatsoever. With this decision before them, how did it happen that such teaching as at a later date obtained the ascendency in France, and in some other parts of Europe, could have met with favor? The work of M. Gérin answers this question clearly, and shows that intrigue and royal influence and power did the work.

The documents with which he opens his collection refer to the year 1663. They, for the most part, have hitherto been entirely unknown, and were found by M. Gérin among theMSS.of the time of Louis XIV. in theBibliothèque Impériale—MSS.Colbert. At that time ill-humor existed between the French and Papal courts, growing out of a quarrel between the servants of the French ambassador at Rome. This was settled for the moment; but on the appointment of the Duc de Créqui, the feuds were renewed, owing to the disposition of that ambassador, whose pride had been wounded by his having been obliged to pay the first visits to the relatives of the pope, who were in the first places of the government. The retainers of the duke on the 12th of August, 1662, attacked and beat the Corsican guard in the service of the pope. The pope sent an envoy to visit the duke, who pretended that an attempt had been made on his life. Instead of receiving the messenger of the pontiff graciously, he threatened to throw him out of the window, and refused all apologies. This was a spark thrown into other inflammable matter that brought on an invasion of the papal territory, and other still worse disasters to the church. The king, as a consequence of his difficulties with the pope, became surroundedwith evilly-disposed counsellors, whom, to do him justice, he sometimes curbed. It was during this political trouble that the enemies of Rome sought to deal her a blow fatal to her influence. The Jansenist opinions had received a severe condemnation in the decrees of the sovereign pontiff and through the action of Louis XIV. Those who professed them were obliged to sign a formula of submission to the church, and receive the doctrine of Rome. There were many who, while they did so, still held to the erroneous teachings of their sect. Among these there was an Abbé Bourseis, a man of some ability, but of more tact in courtly life. In 1661, on the 12th of December, a bachelor of theology defended the following thesis:

"We acknowledge Christ head of the church in such a manner that he, on ascending to heaven, intrusted the government of it first to Peter, and afterward to his successors, and gave them the same infallibility he himself possessed, whenever they should speak authoritatively, (ex cathedra.) There is, therefore, in the Roman church an infallible judge of controversy regarding faith, even apart from general councils, in questions both of right and of fact."

About the same time, the Abbé Bourseis seized upon this opportunity and gained over the minister Colbert; while the son of the minister Letellier brought over his father. The thesis was represented as an attempt of the Jesuits against the government. About the same time, Drouet de Villeneuve, a bachelor of the College of Navarre, defended the same doctrine in substance. The advocate-general was instructed to proceed in the case. The parliament having been informed of what had occurred, issued a decree against the thesis, on the 22d of January, 1663, forbidding any one to write, hold, or teach such propositions under penalty of being proceeded against by the courts; and commanded this decree to be placed on the register of the said faculty of Paris. The parliament deputed two counsellors of the court, and Achille de Harlay, the substitute of theprocureur-général, to have the decree registered. These persons repaired to the Sorbonne on the 31st January, 1663. "Despite the menaces addressed to the indocile doctors, by Talon, the advocate-general, and Harlay, the faculty refused to obey; and only agreed to take the matter into consideration."[129]M. de Mincé and M. de Breda, favorable to the government, said the faculty had not changed its sentiments and did not approve the thesis. No conclusion was come to; the discussion was adjourned to the 1st. Nothing, however, was done on the first nor on the 5th of February. On the 9th, the archbishops of Auch and of Paris were present. The first spoke against the decree and action of the parliament; the second said no opposition should be made to the decree, but that the faculty would be able to arrange things in a satisfactory manner if they discussed the matter amicably with the first president of the parliament. The Archbishop of Auch said that general councils were necessary only against schism; the rest, against heresy as well as schism, but for nothing else. No conclusion was reached. On the 15th of February, M. de Breda reported, and read the answer of the first president, and, hearing a great uproar, said he was astonished to see those present so excited against the parliament. M. Grandin, syndic of the faculty, to justify himself for having signed the thesis, spoke for a long time, and tried to give a good meaning to the thesis, and explainedthe third proposition, touching the need of general councils, in the same way as the Archbishop of Auch. M. de Mincé wished the decree registered. M. Morel thought it ought not to be registered before the thesis had been censured. He quoted some text of St. Gregory Nazianzen, adding that, if it were registered, the faculty would be like the statue of Memnon. He was followed in his opinion by M. Amiot. The Rev. P. Nicolai, MM. Bail, Joisel, Chamillard, and all the doctors of St. Sulpice, and of the house of Chardonnet, were of the same opinion, and declaimed strongly against the harangue of the substitute, Achille de Harlay. M. Lestocq, professor of the Sorbonne, wished to prove the decree null both in matter and form. M. Chamillard the younger said the Council of Constance was not received, and that its doctrine was only probable; but the greater part of the doctors having risen against him, he was obliged to say it had been received in part. M. Bossuet[130]here made a feint of bringing forward a new project; upon which Leblond, professor of the Sorbonne, Bonst, also professor, Joisel and Blanger, of the Sorbonne, following the advice of the Père Nicolai, left their places in an indignant manner, saying that the harangue of the substitute ought to be censured. All the professors of the Sorbonne, without exception, the fathers Louvet and Hermant, Bernardines and professors in their house, spoke bitterly against the parliament; and when the Père Hermant undertook to prove the infallibility of the pope and his superiority over a council, he was followed by nearly all the monks.

On the 15th, MM. Pignay, Bail, Nicolai, Chaillon, dean of Beauvais, Joisel, and all the professors of the Sorbonne without exception, as also MM. Magnay and Charton, opposed the registering.

The chief instructor of the bachelor Villeneuve, the Abbé de Tilloy, who had signed the thesis, and M. Joisel wished the decree registered with the explanations of M. Grandin. M. Leblond, professor of the Sorbonne, and M. Lestocq concluded that it was agreed on that the registering should be accepted with these explanations. M. Guyard, of Navarre, said that to do so was to accuse the good faith of those who had drawn up the conclusion, which had passed by advice of MM. de Mincé and de Breda. The Rev. Fathers de la Barmondière and Leblanc, of St. Sulpice, accused the faculty of mortal sin, and the latter said it was through cowardice and fear of the temporal power that the decree was registered. M. Cornet, the head professor of Navarre, was not present at these assemblies.

At the end of this memoir are the list of doctors who took part in the discussions, and confidential notes regarding each of the members of the faculty.

"List of doctors who have acted badly, or are suspected, on the subject of the decree of the parliament, (that is, opposed the king.)MM. Cornet,Grandin, professor,De Lestocq, "Chamillard, "Leblond, "Bonst, "Despérier, "Joisel,Chamillard, brother of the professor,Pignay,Morel,Charton,Gobinet,Amiot,Rouillé,Alleaume de Tilloy,Demure,Magnet,Quatrehommes,Bossuet,De la Barmondière,Leblanc,Dez de Fontaine,Bail,Du Fournel,De Pinteville."Doctors who have acted well on this same occasion, and who particularly distinguished themselves, (that is, favored the king.)MM. De Mincé, curé de Gonesse—very well.De Breda, curé de St. André—admirably.Duzon,Vaillant,Faure,Fortin,Cocquelin,Caspin.""SKETCH OF THE DOCTORS WHO HAVE ACTED BADLY OR ARE SUSPECTED."Before making remarks on these gentlemen, I protest sincerely that I consider them all good men, full of true ecclesiastical zeal, but, to my mind, in this affair not bearing themselves according to knowledge."M. Cornet,[131]a fine mind, a very able man, of irreproachable life, with so great a reputation among those of his party that he is their head beyond dispute, and the soul of their deliberations. Those most attached to him are MM. Grandin, Chamillard, and Morel—the first two with more reserve and management, the last more openly and frankly."Nothing can be expected from the Carmelites, Augustinians, and Franciscans.""COMMUNITIES TO BE FEARED ON THIS OCCASION."That of the Jesuits under the Père Bazot."That of St. Sulpice, where, to tell the truth, ecclesiastics are educated in a spirit of perfect regularity; but we are assured that every one there is extremely in favor of the papal authority."That of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet."That known as the Trente-Trois, at the Hôtel d'Albiac, near the College of Navarre, under M. Charton."That of M. Gilot."There are severaldévotswho aid these in a work which good Frenchmen and true subjects of the king strive to prevent. The principal are MM. Dalbon, De la Motte, Fénélon, and M. d'Abély named for the bishopric of Rodez."

"List of doctors who have acted badly, or are suspected, on the subject of the decree of the parliament, (that is, opposed the king.)

MM. Cornet,Grandin, professor,De Lestocq, "Chamillard, "Leblond, "Bonst, "Despérier, "Joisel,Chamillard, brother of the professor,Pignay,Morel,Charton,Gobinet,Amiot,Rouillé,Alleaume de Tilloy,Demure,Magnet,Quatrehommes,Bossuet,De la Barmondière,Leblanc,Dez de Fontaine,Bail,Du Fournel,De Pinteville.

"Doctors who have acted well on this same occasion, and who particularly distinguished themselves, (that is, favored the king.)

MM. De Mincé, curé de Gonesse—very well.De Breda, curé de St. André—admirably.Duzon,Vaillant,Faure,Fortin,Cocquelin,Caspin."

"SKETCH OF THE DOCTORS WHO HAVE ACTED BADLY OR ARE SUSPECTED.

"Before making remarks on these gentlemen, I protest sincerely that I consider them all good men, full of true ecclesiastical zeal, but, to my mind, in this affair not bearing themselves according to knowledge.

"M. Cornet,[131]a fine mind, a very able man, of irreproachable life, with so great a reputation among those of his party that he is their head beyond dispute, and the soul of their deliberations. Those most attached to him are MM. Grandin, Chamillard, and Morel—the first two with more reserve and management, the last more openly and frankly.

"Nothing can be expected from the Carmelites, Augustinians, and Franciscans."

"COMMUNITIES TO BE FEARED ON THIS OCCASION.

"That of the Jesuits under the Père Bazot.

"That of St. Sulpice, where, to tell the truth, ecclesiastics are educated in a spirit of perfect regularity; but we are assured that every one there is extremely in favor of the papal authority.

"That of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.

"That known as the Trente-Trois, at the Hôtel d'Albiac, near the College of Navarre, under M. Charton.

"That of M. Gilot.

"There are severaldévotswho aid these in a work which good Frenchmen and true subjects of the king strive to prevent. The principal are MM. Dalbon, De la Motte, Fénélon, and M. d'Abély named for the bishopric of Rodez."

The decree, says M. Gérin, was registered on the 4th of April; but on the same day a thesis similar to the one it condemned was maintained, with the approbation of the syndic of the faculty, in the college of the Bernardines, by the Frère Laurent Desplantes. On the 14th of April, in consequence of this being denounced by royal agents, the parliament cited before it M. Grandin, the syndic, the professor presiding at the thesis, the disputant, and the superiors of the Bernardines. Talon, the advocate-general, spoke with great warmth. "Strange," he said in his prosecution,—"strange, that, with unexampled rashness, they have dared to renew these evil propositions on the very day the decree was registered in the faculty." Grandin held out against the storm, and the parliament suspended him from his duties. This rigor frightened the timid, and some days afterward the court received a number of equivocal propositions, subscribed by sixty-six doctors only. The whole number was over seven hundred. M. Deslions, of the Sorbonne, in hisMS.journal,[132]lets us into the secret of the way in which these six propositions were gotten up. They are as follows:

"1. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign pontiff has any authority over the temporal rights of the most Christian king; on the contrary, the faculty always opposed those who favored that authority, even understood as indirect only."2. It is the doctrine of the faculty that the most Christian king acknowledges and has no superior at all in temporal matters except God; and this is its ancient doctrine, from which it will never recede."3. It is the doctrine of the faculty that subjects owe fidelity and obedience to the most Christian king in such a way that they can be dispensed from them under no pretext."4. It is the doctrine of the faculty that they neither approve nor have approved any proposition, contrary to the authority of the most Christian king, or to the genuine (germanis) liberties of the Gallican Church and canons received in the realm, v. g., that the sovereign pontiff can depose bishops in despite of these canons."5. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign pontiff is above an œcumenical council."6. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign pontiff is infallible if no consent of the church support him, (nullo accedente ecclesiæ consensu.)"

"2. It is the doctrine of the faculty that the most Christian king acknowledges and has no superior at all in temporal matters except God; and this is its ancient doctrine, from which it will never recede.

"3. It is the doctrine of the faculty that subjects owe fidelity and obedience to the most Christian king in such a way that they can be dispensed from them under no pretext.

"4. It is the doctrine of the faculty that they neither approve nor have approved any proposition, contrary to the authority of the most Christian king, or to the genuine (germanis) liberties of the Gallican Church and canons received in the realm, v. g., that the sovereign pontiff can depose bishops in despite of these canons.

"5. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign pontiff is above an œcumenical council.

"6. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign pontiff is infallible if no consent of the church support him, (nullo accedente ecclesiæ consensu.)"

With regard to these propositions, M. Deslions writes:

"M. Bouthillier, doctor of the Sorbonne, and later member of the assembly of 1682,and Bishop of Troyes, told me that, in the conference held among the doctors deputed to draw up the six articles presented to the king on the part of the Sorbonne, in the first article, which concerns the deposition of kings, the phrase 'on no pretext,' (nullo prætextu,) was purposely inserted; and that thereupon some one present objected the case of heresy. M. Morel then said that this would be areason, and not a simplepretext, for deposing a king. He told me, also, that he had seen in theMS.of M. Grandin, at the sixth article, that the pope is not infallibleif some kind of consentof the church do not support him. They resolved to put instead of this,if no consentsupport him; which is the same thing, and in some way less even. So true is it that these articles were drawn up in the most equivocal language the framers could suitably employ. M. Bouthillier learned this of M. Gobinet, one of the deputies."

In confirmation of this, M. Gérin quotes a comment on these articles made by Pinsson, advocate of the parliament, by order of Colbert. He qualifies all the propositions as equivocal or captious. He says:

"1. This first proposition is captious; it should have been general, affirmative, specific, etc."2. The king did not need the avowal of the faculty to prove that he knows no superior in temporal matters, this avowal being much more advantageous to the popes themselves, who have recognized it, as does Pope Innocent III., cap.Per venerabilem, in the decretals."3. This repetition too often made of the words 'most Christian king' was unnecessary for Frenchmen, and it would have been less suspicious and more advantageous if, in speaking of the king, they had given to him no title, etc."4. This fourth is equivocal and suspicious, etc."5. The affectation of framing the fifth article in negative expressions cannot but be suspicious, etc."6. The last article should not have been conceived in negative terms, but in affirmative; to wit, that the pope of himself is not infallible without the consent of the universal church. And the phrase, 'If no consent of the church support him,' is too equivocal in this place," etc.

"1. This first proposition is captious; it should have been general, affirmative, specific, etc.

"2. The king did not need the avowal of the faculty to prove that he knows no superior in temporal matters, this avowal being much more advantageous to the popes themselves, who have recognized it, as does Pope Innocent III., cap.Per venerabilem, in the decretals.

"3. This repetition too often made of the words 'most Christian king' was unnecessary for Frenchmen, and it would have been less suspicious and more advantageous if, in speaking of the king, they had given to him no title, etc.

"4. This fourth is equivocal and suspicious, etc.

"5. The affectation of framing the fifth article in negative expressions cannot but be suspicious, etc.

"6. The last article should not have been conceived in negative terms, but in affirmative; to wit, that the pope of himself is not infallible without the consent of the universal church. And the phrase, 'If no consent of the church support him,' is too equivocal in this place," etc.

The offer, in the name of the faculty, of these propositions put a stop to the difficulty for the time, and the settlement of the question of redress so unjustifiably and tyrannically urged by Louis XIV. against the holy see brought with it an external appearance of peace, while it left a rankling wound that was to break out afresh in the contests concerning theregale, or so-styled "royal perquisite," seventeen years later.

"This question of theregale," says M. Gérin, "was of a date much anterior to the time of Louis XIV." It consisted in the vindication by the crown of a presumed title to the revenues of certain dioceses, and to the nomination of persons to hold benefices in the same, upon the death or removal of the bishop, and until the newly nominated bishop had taken the oath of fealty, and had registered it in the chancellor's chamber, this act being styled the closure of the royal right, orregale. The Council of Lyons had authorized this custom with regard to bishoprics in which it had been established as a condition in their foundation, or had existed as an ancient practice; while it expressly forbade its introduction with respect to those dioceses in which it had not been received.

"The parliaments undertook, however, to make the custom one of universal application, compelling the dioceses claiming exemption to prove their title to be free from it."Henry IV. by an edict of 1606, art. 27, declared, 'We do not intend to enjoy the right of royal perquisite (regale) save in the manner in which we and our predecessors have done, without extending it further to the prejudice of churches exempt from it.' This edict was registered in the parliament of Paris without modification; but on the 24th of August, 1608, the same parliament pronounced a decree conceived in these terms: 'The court declares the king to have a right to the royal perquisite from the church of Belley, as from every other in his kingdom;' and forbidding advocates to put forward any proposition to the contrary. The clergy complained to the king, who by letters of 1609 yielded the execution of thedecree. Louis XIII. seemed favorable to the rights of the church; but after the accession of Louis XIV. these rights were menaced more than ever, and 'there was no assembly of the clergy,' particularly after the year 1638, in which a special commission was not named to attend to the subject of royal perquisite."[133]

"The parliaments undertook, however, to make the custom one of universal application, compelling the dioceses claiming exemption to prove their title to be free from it.

"Henry IV. by an edict of 1606, art. 27, declared, 'We do not intend to enjoy the right of royal perquisite (regale) save in the manner in which we and our predecessors have done, without extending it further to the prejudice of churches exempt from it.' This edict was registered in the parliament of Paris without modification; but on the 24th of August, 1608, the same parliament pronounced a decree conceived in these terms: 'The court declares the king to have a right to the royal perquisite from the church of Belley, as from every other in his kingdom;' and forbidding advocates to put forward any proposition to the contrary. The clergy complained to the king, who by letters of 1609 yielded the execution of thedecree. Louis XIII. seemed favorable to the rights of the church; but after the accession of Louis XIV. these rights were menaced more than ever, and 'there was no assembly of the clergy,' particularly after the year 1638, in which a special commission was not named to attend to the subject of royal perquisite."[133]

That of 1670 presented a remonstrance to the king through the Archbishop of Embrun; but in 1673 and 1675, two royal declarations appeared to the effect that all the churches of the kingdom were subject to the right of royal perquisite; and that the archbishops and bishops who had not yet closed it by registering their oath should go through that formality within six months.

Caulet, Bishop of Pamiers, and Pavillon, Bishop of Alet, standing on their rights as secured by the custom of exemption, and by the canons of the general Council of Lyons, refused to obey. The result was a contest between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, in which Rome of necessity became engaged. Unheard-of harshness, and cruelty even, were used against the clergymen who opposed the government. One vicar-general was condemned to death. Unhappily, there were many ecclesiastics, who had been provided with benefices by the government, who not only took sides with it, but, being interested, were active in keeping up a quarrel the solution of which, in accordance with the views of Rome, would have proved ruinous to them. They sold Christ for a few pieces of money. The deputies of the clergy in 1680, in their regular quinquennial assembly, at the request of Louis XIV., wrote a flattering letter in favor of his claims and against the pope. This caused Madame de Sévigné to criticise them caustically. When speaking of the two prelates mentioned above, she says, after referring to the then Bishop of Alet, who had succeeded Pavillon, "But the shade of his saintly predecessor, and M. de Pamiers—have they signed that letter of flattery?"

But what were the means used to bring about the assembly of 1682, in which the four articles of which so much has been said were framed? That which we have recounted up to this was only the preparation of the soil; the seed was now to be sown, and fostered with all the care of royal interest. M. Gérin quotes from theProcès Verbaux du Clérgé, t. v.

"The general agents or procurators of the clergy" (these agents resided permanently in Paris to protect the interests of the church in case of collision with the state, or in matters partly ecclesiastical and partly secular) "were counselled to present a memorial to the king, and to pray his majesty to allow them to call together the prelates who were in Paris, on business connected with their churches, in order that through their singular prudence they might find means to restore peace and put every thing in order. The king having permitted this assembly, it was held during the months of March and of May, 1681, in the archiepiscopal palace of Paris."

It is humiliating to a Catholic to have to make the avowal, but it is well known that royal patronage had well-nigh ruined the French Church, and that not a few bishops unworthy of the name occupied high and influential places. This assembly, known as "the Little Assembly," (La Petite Assemblée,) met the day after the order was given. Fifty bishops, of whom the great majority ought to have been at their posts of duty, were basking in the sunshine of royal favor, and it was these Louis XIV. called on for advice. Racine has a sarcastic epigram on them, which M. Gérin quotes:

"Un ordre, hier venu de S. Germain,Veut qu'on s'assemble; on s'assemble demain;Notre archévêque et cinquante-deux autres,Successeurs des apôtres,S'y trouveront. Or, de savoir quel casS'y traitera, c'est encore un mystère.C'est seulement chose très claireQue nous avions cinquante-deux prélatsQui ne residaient pas."

The advice these prelates gave was what might have been expected from the state of things at the time.

They indorsed the action of the government on four points of discussion with the holy see:

1. The royal perquisite, which Fleury and Bossuet could not approve.

2. The book of the Abbé Gerbais, censured by Rome as schismatical, suspected of heresy, and injurious to the holy see; but which they found full of good doctrine and of deep learning.

3. In the affair of Charonne. This was a case of exemption from royal nomination in which the king had violated that right. The religious women of the convent of Charonne, near Paris, which belonged to the Augustinian rule, enjoyed the privilege, recognized by the civil power, of electing every three years their superior. Louis XIV., however, in 1676, named for their superior a Cistercian nun, whom the Archbishop of Paris, Harlay de Champvallon, acknowledged, and to whom he gave the position. The religious appealed to the sovereign pontiff, who, by a brief dated August 7th, 1680, annulled the act of the archbishop, and ordered them to proceed to the triennial election, and take for their superior one of their own number.

4. In the affair of the diocese of Pamiers, of which we have spoken above.

"On the 2d of May the assembly resolved to ask the king to call a national council, or general assembly of the clergy, composed of two deputies of the first order and two of the second from each province, the latter to have a consulting voice only. The other details were to be arranged according to the advice of the commissaries."[134]

The action of this assembly was much criticised and was disapproved by the people, as can be seen, according to M. Gérin's statement, in theMSS.of St. Sulpice, i. ii. iii.; Bibl. Mazarine,MSS.2392, 2398 fr. From these he makes several long and interesting extracts.

In consequence of this resolution of the Little Assembly, "the king, on the 16th of July, 1681, addressed letters of convocation to the agents of the clergy, through whom the archbishops of the territory subject to his majesty were charged to hold provincial assemblies and cause to be chosen two deputies of the first order and two of the second, for the general assembly assigned for the 1st of October, 1681."

Before entering upon a history of this body, M. Gérin gives a clear idea of the question at issue between the king and the pontiff, and shows that it was of the same nature as that which caused the struggle, in which the church was finally victorious, between Gregory VII. and the German emperor, Henry IV. The appointment of proper pastors for the flock was at stake. Rome sought likewise to put a stop to the abuse by which laymen were pensioned on dioceses, whose funds ought to have been devoted to supplying the spiritual wants of the people, and relieving the poor and orphans. The church was in imminent danger of servitude, spiritual and temporal, as Fleury himself states. So far had the usurpation of ecclesiastical jurisdiction gone that, when Louis XIV., at Strasburg, gave audience to the bishop of that place, the act of the king in putting his hand on the crozier of the prelate as he leant forward to hear him was interpreted as a resumption of investiture by the ring and crozier. Pelisson, however, the intimate friend of the king, tells us this was not thecase, as he heard him say afterward that such an idea had not occurred to him; but as the prelate spoke in a rather low tone, he bent toward him and leaned for support on the crozier.

The government of Louis had wished this assembly for its own ends; it was therefore determined that nothing should be left undone to secure a favorable result. The temper of all the members of the French hierarchy was known: there were some who were feared—these were to be passed by; some who were doubted—these were to be allured to compliance; others there were whose worldly spirit and indebtedness to the crown left no uncertainty as to their course—these were to be put forward, honored, and made the leaders in the movement against Rome. Colbert, ably seconded by the worldly Harlay de Champvallon, Archbishop of Paris, set about the work. His master was all-powerful; every thing but true virtue was to bend before him. Canonical forms were to be superseded if found to be trammels, and persons who contradicted were to be made to feel the weight of royal displeasure. The legislative bodies even had been reduced to a state of passive instrumentality, so that, in 1672, a conscientious bishop of Languedoc complained to Colbert that votes were given without discussion, and protested that explanations should be made in regard to the advantages or the necessity of the expenses the states were called on to vote. In this state of things, the Little Assembly had been convened and had acted the part we have seen. Before closing its sessions it named a commission under the presidency of Harlay, without whose bidding it was to do nothing. This commission drew up the project of procuration, and, by order of the king, no mention was made of the part he had had in it. On the 16th of June, 1681, Colbert writes to the archbishop:

"Sir: You will find accompanying this a copy of the letter of the king, as approved by his majesty, for the convocation of the general assembly of the clergy, in which you will remark that no mention is made of the plan of procuration, placed by you in my hands. His majesty has thought that nothing should appear as coming from him that might determine the matters to be acted on in the said assemblage; but he has resolved to give orders on this subjectby word of mouthto the general agents of the clergy, and to direct that this project or plan of procuration be sent to the archbishops, with the explanation that it has been drawn up by commissioners named at the late assembly, for the purpose of being sent to all parts; to make known what ought to be treated of in the said assembly, and to bring about uniformity of powers; and in order to cause the provincial assemblies to give powers of procuration to the deputies of the general assembly, conformably to the project, his majesty will direct that the intendants of provinces be written to, to command them to impart to the archbishops his intentions on the subject of the procuration."

M. Gérin gives us here the text of this plan of procuration; it is from aMS.annotated by theprocureur-généralDe Harlay, brother of the archbishop. The deputies are

"To repair to the said city of Paris, according to the letters of the king and of the said agents, and there deliberate, in the manner contained in the resolution of the said assemblies of March and May, (the Little Assembly,) on the means of reconciling the variances respecting the royal right of perquisite (regale) between the pope, on the one side, and the king, on the other; to determine on all the acts which they shall deem necessary to put an end to these variances, with the deputies of other provinces, the same to sign the clauses and conditions that the assembly shall judge fitting; they are likewise charged and expressly commanded to employ all proper means to repair the infractions committed by the court of Rome in the decrees of the concordatde causis et de frivolis appellationibusin the affairs of Charonne, of Pamiers, of Toulouse, and others which may have or shall have transpired; to preserve the jurisdiction of the ordinaries of the realm, and the various degreesof it in the form sanctioned by the concordat; to cause the pope, in case of appeal to Rome, to depute commissaries in France to judge it; to procure, by all sorts of due and proper means, the preservation of the maxims and liberties of the Gallican Church; to pass the resolutions by a plurality of votes, and, for the reasons explained above, to frame all acts that shall be required, even though there be any thing demanding a more special commission than is contained in these presents, promise being given that all that shall have been granted and signed by them shall be agreed to and observed inviolably in every particular, according to its form and tenor."

The government foresaw that the second order of the clergy, the simple priests, would make an attempt to vindicate their right to a voice. For this reason it determined to have a precedent by which to act. The Archbishop of Rheims, who was in the interest of the government, convoked his provincial assembly at Senlis; the second order protested; its voice was stifled, and the plan of procuration accepted. An account of the proceedings was made out and sent to the king, by whose command copies were immediately transmitted to the intendants of the kingdom with orders to instruct the archbishops to do the same in like cases.[135]As for the choice of deputies, that was to be made without any appearance or direct proof of royal intervention. But the names of the deputies show the pressure that must have been brought to bear by the court. M. Gérin quotes here a number of documents in which the royal interference is manifest. Thus Colbert writes to the Archbishop of Rouen:

"Fontainebleau, Sept. 21, 1681."The king, being persuaded that the Bishop of Lisieux can be of more use in the next assembly than any other of your suffragans, his majesty has ordered me to write you that you will please have him chosen," etc.

"Fontainebleau, Sept. 21, 1681.

"The king, being persuaded that the Bishop of Lisieux can be of more use in the next assembly than any other of your suffragans, his majesty has ordered me to write you that you will please have him chosen," etc.

From page 115 to 153 M. Gérin demonstrates this pressure unanswerably; and from page 153 to page 261, he shows from the character of the persons chosen, the nature of the assembly, and its obsequiousness to the sovereign. On page 260 he asks,

"Why were not seen there Mascaron, Fléchier, Bourdaloue, Fénélon, Huet, Mabillon, Thomassin, Rancé, Tronson, Brisacier, Tiberge, La Salle, La Chétardie, and so many others, still more glorious in the sight of God than in that of men?... Cease then from saying that the assembly of 1682 was theéliteof the clergy of the day!"

One of the most interesting features connected with the history of the assembly is the new phase put upon the part acted in it by the famous Bishop of Meaux—Bossuet. His position here contradicts what we have seen him do in the year 1663. But from all the documents M. Gérin brings forward, it is evident that he was drawn in against his will. In one place he writes:

"The assembly is about to be held; and they desire not only that I should be present, but that I should preach the introductory sermon." (Letter to the Abbé de Rancé.)

Fleury in his notes says,

"It was the will of the king that the Bishop of Meaux should be present."

It is true that the articles were drawn up by him; but it was because he saw that extreme opinions were about to prevail, to prevent which he took the propositions into his hands, and did the best he could under the circumstances. This, however, does not excuse him entirely; for there are times in which we should be ready to suffer for the cause of truth, and if necessary even to give our lives. The fault of Bossuet was, that he was weak, and could not resolve to forfeit royal favor for the glory of sufferingin a just cause. After a careful and thorough perusal of the chapter on Bossuet and the assembly, it is impossible to come to any milder conclusion than this. The articles were drawn up and passed by the assembly. It is not our purpose to go into an examination of these articles. It will suffice to state that their aim was to limit that fulness of power belonging to the sovereign pontiff which we have seen implied in the definition of the Council of Florence, without seeming to do or say any thing that could be noted as heretical or schismatical; and in the third article there is an indorsement of the decrees of the fourth and fifth Council of Constance, which it is well known were never approved by the sovereign pontiff, and have therefore no authority. These decrees proclaim the superiority of a general council of bishops over the pope, and strike a direct blow at his infallibility and supremacy. They were the very decrees that caused the decision of the Council of Florence, though the occasion of the definition was the union of the Greek and Latin churches. How were these articles received? On the 19th of March they were adopted by the assembly. On the 11th of April, Innocent XI. censured them in his brief. Louis XIV. was so much impressed by this act of the pope that he prevented the bishops of the assembly from sending a circular to the prelates of the kingdom, by way of protest. On the 9th of May, he suspended the sessions of the assembly; and on the 29th of June, he sent orders for its immediate dissolution, without allowing it to go through with the rest of its programme. Count de Maistre says of him, "He broke up the assembly unceremoniously, with so much wisdom and fitness, that one almost pardons him for having called it together."[136]He did not even allow the minutes of the sessions to be put in the archives of the clergy.[137]M. Gérin tells us that the people were opposed to this assembly from the outset; and when the members were about to depart, the following epigram sped them on their way,

Back to Index Next