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 momentous changes in the fortunes of Europe, received his deathblow 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. He 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 accompany him into a glazerl 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. Francois de Sales, between whom and Henry there existed a warm personal regard, expressed 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 France; 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 tbe last moment of life, the contrition which is necessary to a liappy 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."

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 Ravaillac's execution, June 4, the Faculty of Theology assembled 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 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.

Four days later the Parliament issued an arret 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; 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 ex 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 to sanction or excuse, in the remotest degree, the atrocious crime of parricide. The arret 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 quatenus 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 Grunpowder 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 V addressed a brief to Blackwell condemning the oath as unlawful, since it contained many things 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; and this was accompanied by an expostulatory letter from Cardinal Bellarmine to the Archpriest Blackwell, in which the ultramontane principles concerning the Papal authority 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 anonymous, 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 ig-nominious 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 arret consequently fell to the ground. This resolution of the Rlegent 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, 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 Roman curia required to be " erified" by the Parhament, 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 reaction 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 V, 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 Gotirus in his treatise 'De imperio summarum Potestatum circa sacra.'

Grotius attributes to the civil magistrate almost eyery ecclesiastical prerogative except the actual functions of preaching and administering the Sacraments.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 universal 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 medieval 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 excommunicating 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 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.

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. 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 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 intercesion of Father Cotton, permission to give public instruction 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 November, 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, 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 Scripture, the fathers of the Church, and ecclesiastical history; and eventually found reason to discard his early prepossessions, and to espouse, with equal warmth, the Galilean system of church government and discipline. Advancing steadily in reputation. Richer was appointed Principal of the College Le Moine, and in 1600 was named by Henry IV a member of the Royal Commission 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 uncompromising 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 Dominicans was held at the great convent of their Order in the Rue St. Jacques. It was customary at such gatherings to give public dissertations on theological subjects; and it had been resolved oil the present occasion to make what in modern phrase would be styled a "demonstration" in favour of the absolute supremacy of the Pope, and other Ultramontane inventions. On the appointed day the hall was thronged by a distinguished audience, 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, viith 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 Ecumenieal 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 V had 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 difficulty, succeeded in putting a stop to the proceedings.

Tihs 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 Eicher put forth a treatise ,'De Ecclesiastica et Politica 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.

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 Churc, and his 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 of the Pope are obligatory only so far forth as they are in accordance with the canons; his authority consists in interpreting 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 entertained 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 deposition 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 purpose, and no exertion was spared by the Ultramontanes to create such a majority among the doctors as might secure the success of their candidate, if by any means Riclier 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 eloquent invective. Richer himself gave his assistance in preparing 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 Galilean Church, and of its ancient liberties; if the Jesuits could destroy it, they would no longer have any reason to fear the condemnation of their books and their doctrine. Their doctrine is most dangerous and execrable; according to them the Pope is absolute, 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 repugnance to Catholic truth were it not that they find these extravagant notions propagated as indispensable verities. So infatuated are the Jesuits on this point, that they strive to discredit and injure even the most ortliodox 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 their system of mental reservations they are enabled to subscribe 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 permitted, 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 pronounced 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 becomes acquainted, through the confessional, with any attempt or conspiracy against the King or tlie 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 engagements 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 prtjpositions 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 Blost 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 enrolled 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 Galilean Church, as recognized and observed from time immemorial. But this act, as the Abbe Eacine reniarks,t 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 Ecclesiastica et Politica Potestate ' by the Theological Faculty of the University ; 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. * Pec a curious accouut of these scenes in Le Vassor, Hist, de Louis XIII, Liv. iii. t Eacine, Hist. Ecclesiastique, Liv. X. p. 251. A.B. 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 prelates 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 perceive 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 tlie legal' means of self-protection which the constitution afforded him, and appealed to tlie Parliament "comme d'abus" against the Archbishop and his suffragans. But his friends among the magistrates 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 ofSce, 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 afterwai-ds re-appeared at the meetings of the Faculty. He retired contentedly into solitude, where he devoted himself to learned study, and to the composition of many excellent and valuable works. These, ho\^ever, \iere not given to the world till after his death, which took place in November, 1631. * " Comme elles Eonncnt." VOL. I. 274 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. Chap. VI. The rancorous animosity of the Ultramontanes against Eicher 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 Eome. 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 Eichelieu, is related by the Abbd Eacine,* That terrible Capuchin, he states, invited Eicher to dinner, and pressed him to sign a retractation of his doctrine as to the nature and limits of the Papal authority. On his deolining, two i-ufSans rushed from behind the arras, and holding each a dagger to his breast, compelled him, under threats of instant death, to afiSx 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 Gni 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 Eicher was induced by Father Joseph and Talon, cure of St. G-ervais, 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." t The Parliament, though it had been deterred by motives of political expediency from pursuing a bold course in defence of Eicher, took an early opportunity of showing that its views as to the autocratic supremacy claimed by the Eoman See remained unchanged. Pope Paul V., perceiving that, in spite of his repeated injunctions, the oath of allegiance still found considerable acceptance among the English Catholics, commissioned the. Spanish Jesuit Suarez to write a book in support of TJltramontanism—a service which, from his distinguished reputation, was likely to be of signal advantage to the Holy See. Suarez complied, and published, in 1613, his 'Defensio Fidei Catholicee adversus errores Sectse Anglicanse ; cum Eespon- * Hist. Eoclesiastlque, Liv. s. p, 298. t See the Vie du Pere Joseph, in the Archives Curieuses de I'Bisloire de France, 2 Serie, torn. i?. Also D'Argentr6, Collect. Judic., fom. ii. p. i!03. A.D. 1613. CONDEMNATION OF SUAREZ. 275 sione ad Apologiam pvo Juramento Fidelitatis, et ad Pifefa- tionem Monitoriam Serenissimi Jaoobi Maguae Britannise Kegis.' The work is divided into six books. In the first and second the author sets forth the divergence of the so-called Eeformed Eeligion, 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 Eoman 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 arid absurdity of the favourite Protestant 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 sovereigns. The magistrates, after a brief examination, commanded the book to be torn and destroyed by the hands of the executioner—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 Due, and Sir- mond—who, on their appearance, were sternly reprimanded by the President for having violated their engagements made two years before, and were ordered to obtain immediately from their ijreneral at Eome 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 Viissor, Li v. v. T 2 276 THE GALLTCA^r 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 Conde, first prince of the blood, had taken up an attitude of threatening opposition. On the occasion 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 tlie arbitration of the sword. The Due de Eohan, 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 bad apparently reached a crisis, the Court suddenly effected an accommodation with the malcontent princes at S'^ Menehould, 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 Eegent and her advisers, who feared that the States, if they assembled before the j'oung 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, ] 614. 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, haying 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- nals,* seven archbishops, and forty-seven bishops. The venerable Cardinal de Joyeuse, Archbishop of Kouen and Dean of the * These were, De Joyeuse, Du Perron, De Sourdis, Francois de la Koohcfoucauld Bisliop of Scnlis, and Louis de Lorraine Archbishop of Reims, a son of Henry Duke of Guise, 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-Eichelieu, 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 Lupon—a dignity whicli, after the lax fashion of those days, had become a sort of afanage 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 publication 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 Eegent 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 Galilean 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 bad 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 appreciated, and their directions acted upon to the advantage of the See chapter ii., p. IfJ' -'^8 Tl-IE GALLICAN CHUECH. Chap. VI. Church. He proceeded to observe, with grave irony, that it lay m 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. Tliis 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, tlianked the clergy for their zeal for the interests of the Catholic religion, and would gladly endeavour to second their good intentions. 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 fuch 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 tliis 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, Eisloire do Louis XIII., toin, 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 opposite 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 Trance 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 Home, the Jesuits, and all u-pholders 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 fi-ame 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. Tlie 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 dif6cult point at issue. On the last day of December 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 THE 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 vehemence, that the French clergy would rather suffer martyrdom than set their hands to any such declaration as this measure attempted to impose upon them. Tlae 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 theological 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 speculative 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 monarohs, 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. IGlo. MEETING OP THE STATES-GENEKAL. 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 month of their president, Kobert Miron, replied that since, by the Cardinal's own admission, the point in dispute was "problematical," 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 fundamental 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 Conde,t who recommended a policy of conciliation, it was * N^nwires du Clerge'de France, torn. xiii. p. 315. t This speech is reported by D'Avrigny, M^m. Chronol., torn. i. p. 221. 282 THE GALLICAN CHUHCH. Chap. VI. resolved on the one hand to admonish the Chambers to refrain irom further discussion of the points of difference that had arisen between them, and on the other, to forbid the execution of the arret 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 fiivour. 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 deputation, waited on the king at the Louvre, and was informed that there was no need to insert the article in their ofBcial 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 eifected, 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. Sucli 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 confidence v\hich 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 V. despatched briefs to the Cardinal de Joyeuse, the ecclesiastical chamber, and that of the nobles, in which, after extolling the w^isdom, 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 i-e-established in Beam, 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 CHUEOH. Chap. VI. the " Coiirs 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 Gallioan Cliurch ;" 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 College de Clermont, as well as in all proTincial 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 Lufon (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 predominant 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 the Parliaments of Paris and the provinces, the Grand Conseil, the Oour des Aides, the Chambre des Comptes, and the Oour des Monnaics. They were so named because they were ( theoretically and constitutionally ) independent, and not subject to the revision of any superior tribunal. A.D. 1615. SPEECH OP 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 avo\\ed 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," Eichelieu 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, Eichelieu 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 MAnoires du Clertj^de France, torn. xiii. p. 395 etseqq. 286 THE GALLICAN CHURCH. Chap. YI. 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 tlie advancement of his own fortunes. Attaching himself to the party of Mary de Medici and the Marechal d'Ancre, Richelieu now rose rapidly to power. His first court appointment 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 G-overnment 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 Eochefoucauld, 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 Prevot of Paris,* forbidding all ecclesiastics to make publication of the Tridentine decrees as if ofScially 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 Conde, who had lately allied himself with them in consequence of a fresh misunderstanding with the court, expressly stipulated, in making terms with the Government, that this demand of the bishops should not be carried into * The Prevot of Paris was the head of the metropolitan police, his office answering very nearly to that of the " Prefet de Police " of modem times. He presided as judge in a court wliich held its sittings at the Cliatelet. His jurisdiction comprised Ihc city of Paris and the " Isle de Fiance." 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 Eochefoucaujd, 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, Archbishop 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, ami 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- Etat on the independence of the Crown was at first inserted as one of the conditions of this treaty ; but Conde' was induced to abandon It at the urgent instance of the Capucin father Joseph. See the details of this intrigue in the Vie du Pere Josef, in Arch. Cur. de I'Hist. de Fiance, 2 Sorie, torn. iv. 288 TPIE GALLICAN CHURCH. Chap. VI. Venice; and stood forward conspicuously in defence of the Republic against the oppression of the Court of Eome. 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 Home, 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 Eepublica Ecclesiastica,' flhich 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 wliich they become qualified to exerci^^e 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 exti-acted from the work n'as 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 Sorboime when it was published, A.D. 1G17. ANTONIO DE 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 overstrained 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, 1 625. 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 worlds shared the same fate.* * Ellies-Dupin, llisl. Eacles. du XVII. Steele. D'A\rigny, M^m. Chronnlng, tom. i. p. 250. VOL. I. 290 THE GALLIOAN CHUECH.....