THE GALLICAN CHURCH.

A HISTORY OF THE CHURCH OF FRANCE FROM THE CONCORDAT OF BOLOGNA, A.D. 1516, TO THE REVOLUTION, A.D. 1789.

CHAPTER X.

ECCLESIASTICAL POLICY OF RICHELIEU

Richelieu displayed, in his administration of ecclesiastical affairs, the same qualities which characterized his civil policy;—the same all-grasping ambition, the same penetrating discernment of the capacities and tendencies of others, the same implacable vindictiveness, the same determination to uphold with a high hand the independent nationality of France. It was clear, from the outset of his ministry, that he was not one to allow himself to be embarrassed by ordinary scruples, either in the shaping of his public measures or with regard to personal interests. Though a prince of the Church, he was not unfrequently in a state of open variance with the Court of Rome. These differences had their origin in his own inordinate greediness of power. One of his first acts was to solicit the appointment of perpetual Legate of the Holy See, which had formerly been held by the Cardinal of Amboise, prime minister of Louis XII; but his arrogant character had already inspired the Pope with jealousy, and no disposition was shown to gratify him. The coveted dignity was offered to him for three months, but this he would not condescend to accept. He next applied for the inferior office of Legate of Avignon; but here again he met with a mortifying refusal. Further causes of irritation followed. The Cardinal, as we have seen, had no hesitation in preferring the Protestant to the Catholic alliance, when he judged that course more conducive to the advantage of France, and the general maintenance of the balance of power in Europe. This offence naturally made him distrusted at Rome, and his views were, in consequence, thwarted so far as this could be done without risking a serious rupture. Richelieu was already Abbot of Cluny, one of the highest and most lucrative preferments in the French Church. In 1635 he was named Superior-General of Citeaux, on the resignation of the Abbot Nivelles, who earnestly recommended him as his successor, on the score of his zeal for the reformation of the monastic system. A similar honour was conferred upon him by the Premonstratensian Order; so that these proceedings, if confirmed, would have united in his hands the government of three of the most powerful Societies in Europe. But opposition was made by some of the subordinate houses, both in France and elsewhere: and Urban VIII, nothing loth, refused the bulls of institution. He also negatived a proposal made by Richelieu to reform the Order of Cluny by incorporating it with the newly-formed Congregation of St. Maur. Another grievance much resented by the minister was the Pope’s obstinate refusal to bestow a cardinal’s hat on his confidential friend and agent, the Capuchin Father Joseph.

Matters became complicated by fresh affronts and misunder­standings. The Roman Chancery had lately grown extortionate in its pecuniary demands on promotion to episcopal sees, and in assessing that most unpopular impost, the annates. It had been also ordered that the testimonials of character (informations de vie et de moeurs), required by Church dignitaries nominated by the Crown, should be sought, not, as heretofore, from the diocesan ordinaries, but from the Apostolic Nuncio,—in manifest derogation of the “Gallican liberties.” From these causes several French sees had remained long vacant, the bishops-designate being unable to obtain the necessary Papal mandate for their consecration. These difficulties were increased by the fact that the office of “Protector of France” at Rome, though nominally held by Cardinal Antonio Barberini, was practically in abeyance, since the Pope would not allow his nephew to discharge the duties belonging to it.

Richelieu instigated the clergy to complain loudly of these and other abuses. It was suggested that the proper remedy was the convocation of a National Council, to settle by its own authority the internal concerns of the Gallican Church. Canonical appointments might be made, it was urged, without the formality of institution by the Pope; and his Holiness ought to be plainly informed that, if the bulls for the vacant sees were not at once forthcoming, France would dispense with them altogether. It appears, indeed, that an Order of Council was made and signed, forbidding the king’s subjects to apply in future to the Court of Rome for any such purposes. But the Parliament, for some technical reason, objected to register it; and the Nuncio, through the good offices of Father Joseph, succeeded in obtaining a postponement of the measure until fresh instructions should arrive from the Pope, whom he represented as willing to give the king satisfaction.

The outcry for a Gallican Synod, however, continued; and it began to be hinted that such an assembly might judge it expedient to take further steps towards readjusting the relations between France and Rome. It might go so far as to annul the Concordat of Bologna, renounce subjection to the Pope beyond acknowledging the primacy of his see, and place France under the government of an independent Patriarch. Grotius, who was at Paris at the time in the capacity of Envoy from the Queen of Sweden, mentions, in one of his letters to the Chancellor Oxenstiern, that such a report was in circulation; and adds that it was generally believed that Richelieu himself would be raised to this new ecclesiastical dignity. That the idea was canvassed, at this moment of excitement, is certain; but it is not likely that the Cardinal ever had any serious intention of putting it in execution.

As if to aggravate these bitter feelings, an outrage was offered about the same time to the French ambassador at Rome in the person of one of his servants, who was killed in an affray with the police. The Pope, too, showed his ill-will by refusing to perform the accustomed funeral service on the death of Cardinal de la Valette, one of Richelieu’s most devoted adherents. Louis and his minister retaliated at once by forbidding the Papal Nuncio Scoti to appear at Court, and commanding the bishops and clergy to hold no communication with him till further orders. The ambassador D’Estrées was, in like manner, instructed to break off all intercourse with the Pope and his ministers.

The publication of the famous work of the brothers Du­puy, entitled ‘Preuves des libertés de l’Eglise Gallicane,’ was another circumstance which, occurring at this juncture, served to widen the breach between the courts of France and Rome. It appeared at first anonymously ; but the name of the author was no secret, and he was known to write under the patronage and protection of Richelieu. The book was based upon the treatise of Pierre Pithou, but contained a vast additional collection of documents from various sources, which, instead of establishing the franchises of the Church, illustrated the tyrannical excesses and unlawful assumptions of the Crown. Every case was carefully enumerated in which the authority of the Pope, or, indeed, ecclesiastical authority in general, had been attacked with success by the secular power; and these were designated, by a perverse misnomer, proofs of the liberty of the Gallican Church. They were, in reality, proofs of the rise and progress of Erastianism.

Much clamour was raised against this volume by the clergy, and Richelieu found it necessary to order it to be suppressed by the Council of State. Cardinal de la Rochefoucauld, sum­moning a meeting of prelates at his abbey of Ste. Genevieve, denounced the work as schismatical and heretical; and the other bishops were exhorted, in a circular letter, to prohibit it in their dioceses. But these measures seem to have had little effect. The sale of Dupuy’s compilation proceeded with scarcely an affectation of secresy, both in Paris and the provinces.

During the year 1640 the rumours of an impending rupture between France and the Holy See acquired still wider currency. The enemies of Richelieu strove to bring him into odium by stimulating the popular apprehensions on the subject; and with this view a treatise was put forth under an assumed name, entitled, Optati Galli de cavendo schismate liber paraeneticus. The author was Charles Hersent, a priest of the diocese of Paris. His pseudonym, Optatus Gallus, was an apposite allusion to Optatus Bishop of Milevis in the fourth century, who distinguished himself by a powerful exposure of the schism of the Donatists. In emulation of this African prelate, Hersent raised the note of solemn admonition against the threatened divorce of the French Church from the centre of Catholic unity. He descanted on the manifold causes of alarm which had arisen from recent events; the scandalous misrepresentation of the Gallican liberties; the continued circulation of Dupuy’s brochure, in defiance of the sentence of the bishops and the Order of Council for its suppression; the resistance to the customary payments to the Pope on ecclesiastical promotions—a resistance well known to be sanctioned, if not prompted, by the Cardinal­minister; and a recent declaration by the king concerning the validity of marriages, which was at variance with the decrees of Trent and with the constant practice of the Church. Hersent protested further against the perilous scheme of setting up a Patriarch in France, which, if realised, would place the Gallican Church in the self-same predicament with the schismatical establishment in England. This attack was sternly repulsed by the authorities of Church and State. The Parliament ordered the libellous production of Optatus Gallus to be burnt by the public hangman; the Archbishop of Paris and his comprovincials branded it with unanimous censure, as “false, scandalous, malicious, and injurious to the peace of the realm.” Richelieu commissioned several divines to refute the fallacious reasonings of Hersent. One of them, a Jesuit named Rabardeau, published a pamphlet under the title of Optatus Gallus de cavendo schismate benigna manu sectus, in which he maintained that the appointment of a Patriarch by a national Church is by no means a schismatical act; and that the consent of the Pope was not more necessary for such a step in France than it had been in ancient times for the creation of the patriarchates of Jerusalem and Constantinople. The Roman Inquisition condemned this performance, and the sentence was officially recognized by the assembly of French clergy in the session of 1645.

The same occasion gave birth to another literary undertaking of far greater importance, namely the celebrated work of Pierre de Marca, ‘De Concordia Sacerdotii et Imperii.’ The reader will remember that De Marca’s high reputation for learning, both in civil and canon law, had procured for him, some years previously, the appointment of first President of the Parliament of Béarn. He now received, through Richelieu, the king’s commands to exercise his talents in exposing the sophistries of Optatus Gallus. No man in the kingdom, pro­bably, was better qualified for the task. De Marca’s profound acquaintance with antiquity had taught him that the rightful “liberties” of the Church were compatible both with the authority of the Apostolic See and with the independence of the civil power; and that neither the Pope nor the Crown could have just cause to complain, provided the original laws and institutions of Christendom were maintained in their integrity. Such are the principles on which his work is founded;—a work of elaborate and exhaustive research, which has never been surpassed in the department of ecclesiastical lore to which it relates. Notwithstanding all the prudence and discretion of the author, however, it gave offence at Rome; and when De Marca was named, in 1642, to the bishopric of Conserans, he was denied canonical institution. For more than five years his pro­motion was .obstructed, and it was not till he had published a supplementary treatise, in which some of his former statements were explained, some altered, and some withdrawn, that the impediment was at length removed by Innocent X.

Thus dubious were the relations of the Gallican Church with the Roman curia under the despotic rule of Richelieu. Urban VIII, however, though an ambitious Pontiff, possessed considerable address and self-command. He was peremptory in the assertion of his rights, but he never allowed his differences with the French Government to go beyond the reach of explanation and satisfactory adjustment.

An affair of another nature belongs to the same period, which cannot be passed over without notice, though it is difficult to arrive at a complete elucidation of the circumstances. Various theories have been framed respecting them; but, whatever interpretation may be preferred, an equally singular picture meets us of the state of religious feeling, and of public opinion in general, under the ministry of Richelieu. Some of the details, if their date were not known, might be mistaken for legends of the darkest and most barbarous age.

Towards the end of the year 1632, certain strange phenomena made their appearance among the nuns of the Ursuline convent at Loudun in Poitou. Many of them were seized with a sudden and mysterious infatuation. They uttered unearthly cries, threw their bodies into frightful contortions, and practised other ex­travagances, which led to the conclusion that they were either bereft of reason or victims of a demoniacal possession. The latter persuasion quickly prevailed; and great was the commotion when it became known that the patients, in their frenzied ravings, had accused one of the parish priests of the same town of bewitching them by magical arts. This was Urbain Grandier, cure of St. Pierre and canon of Ste. Croix at Loudun. He is described as a man gifted with many outward graces and engaging qualities, but withal vain and presuming, and of irregular morals. His natural and acquired advantages on the one hand, and his notorious licentiousness on the other, had made him an object of jealousy and ill-will, particularly among his clerical brethren. He had excited envy, moreover, by his talents as a preacher, and had taken a prominent part in defending the rights of the secular clergy against the encroachments of the monks and friars. For these reasons a priest named Mignon, confessor to the Ursuline sisterhood, was his sworn enemy; and Mignon conspired with other ecclesiastics to effect his ruin. Whether the whole story of the possession was an imposture fabricated expressly for this purpose, or whether advantage was taken of the existing disorder at the convent to fix an odious imputation upon Grandier which would be strongly corroborated by his antecedents, it is impossible to determine. Mignon affirmed that the foul spirits, being duly exorcised by himself and other priests, bore witness to the guilt of the accused; but it must be observed, as a suspicious circumstance, that these exorcists declined to perform that ceremony in the presence of the local magistrates. The ecclesiastical authorities were divided in their view of the case. The Bishop of Poitiers, in whose diocese Loudun is situated, was unfavourable to Grandier; the Archbishop of Bordeaux, metropolitan of the province, was disposed to befriend him; he sent his own physician to visit the convent, and it appeared from his report that no trace of witchcraft was then visible, and that the demeanour of the sisters was calm and rational. Upon this the Archbishop laid down certain directions, well calculated to elicit the truth, which were to be strictly attended to if the symptoms should reappear. But the preternatural manifestations now ceased for some time, and the plot against Grandier seemed likely to collapse.

Fresh resources, however, were at hand. It so happened that Laubardemont, a councillor of state, well known to be among the most relentless instruments of Richelieu’s tyranny, came to Loudun on public business connected with his office. To him the confederates applied; and by way of prejudicing his mind against Grandier, they insinuated that he was the author of a vulgar lampoon called ‘La Cordonnière de Loudun’, which was full of gross scurrilities against the person, family, and public conduct of the Cardinal-minister. This was one of the crimes which Richelieu never pardoned; and most writers are of opinion that the thirst of vengeance on the supposed satirist was his chief motive in sanctioning the detestable cruelties which followed. Orders were sent to Laubardemont to institute proceedings against Grandier, and that in a form which showed that his condemnation was predetermined. The unhappy man was arrested, and imprisoned for four months at Angers, until the preparations for his trial were completed. On being taken back to Loudun, he was confronted for the first time with the nuns who were said to have suffered from his sorceries. The signs of possession instantly commenced afresh; the fiends were furious against the helpless prisoner; they loaded him with execrations, and threatened to tear' him in pieces. At length he was brought to trial before a special commission named by Richelieu, consisting of twelve judges chosen from a distance, with Laubardemont as president. The evidence against him was that of the demons themselves (Astaroth, Asmodeus, Sabulon, &c.), procured by the mock exorcisms of those who were known to be bent on his destruction. In vain he urged that the devil is the father of lies, and ought not to be credited even when he speaks the truth. In vain it was pointed out that the spirits contradicted themselves, that they were proved to be false by the application of the general tests enjoined by the Church, and that the means prescribed by the metropolitan for guarding against deception in this particular case had been totally ignored. It was a mere parody of justice. Laubardemont even went so far as to announce publicly that any one presuming to gainsay the depositions against the prisoner would be punished with fine and corporal penalties.

The court pronounced judgment on the 17th of August, 1634, convicting Grandier of the crimes of magic and sorcery, in maliciously causing the possession of the Ursulines and of other persons named in the indictment. He was tortured with un­speakable barbarity, but nothing could be wrung from him beyond cries for mercy and fervent protestations of innocence. The capital sentence was executed the next day, and Grandier was burnt to death on a scaffold in the public square of Loudun, imploring pardon of God, and repeating the litanies of the Virgin, with his last breath.

The marvellous tale of the possessions of Loudun, though the instinct of our own age prompts us to reject it without hesitation, found credence at the time, and that not only with the superstitious multitude, but with minds of superior enlightenment and culture. Richelieu, according to the account given in his ‘Memoirs,’ was fully convinced of its truth. The Jesuit Father Surin, a man of unquestionable piety, though inclined to fanaticism, acted as one of the exorcists. Walter Montague, afterwards Abbot of Pontoise, declared to Pope Urban VIII that he had witnessed on this occasion proofs of diabolical agency which made disbelief impossible.

It may safely be pronounced, however, that the possession, if real, was not the work of Urbain Grandier. He was no magician, though unhappily guilty of many other delinquencies. His own undisciplined passions, rather than any more direct commerce with the powers of darkness, would seem to have brought him, by a chain of retributive consequences, to this wretched end.

Of the part acted by Richelieu in this tragedy there is no sufficient explanation. If he believed the case to be one of genuine possession, why did he send it before an extraordinary commission with a man of Laubardemont’s sinister reputation at the head of it, instead of leaving it in the hands of the Church authorities, to whose cognisance it manifestly belonged in the first instance? On the other hand, if he was actuated merely by resentment against Grandier as the presumed writer of a miserable anonymous libel, why did he not prosecute him for that offence before the ordinary tribunals, as had been his custom in other like instances? It has been suggested that the Cardinal’s object was to give another terrible lesson to the Calvinists, who had ridiculed the possessions as a delusion and the exorcisms as a farce. One thing is clear at all events, that he was resolved upon the condemnation of Grandier; but various questions of detail as to the motives which governed him must remain necessarily without an answer.

The unfortunate Ursulines were not immediately delivered from their Satanic visitations upon the death of Grandier. Father Surin was commissioned by his Order to continue the exorcisms, and some of the spirits showed a determination to maintain their posts, in spite of all his exertions, to the last extremity. The prioress, Jeanne des Anges, was grievously tor­mented for more than two years afterwards; and the last of the infernal legion could not be persuaded to decamp till the 15th of October, 1637.

The imperiousness of Richelieu’s temper, combined with the splendour of his genius, gradually overawed the authorities of the realm, ecclesiastical and civil, into a servile compliance with his behests. One of the most marked instances of this was the dissolution of the marriage of Gaston Duke of Orleans, the presumptive heir to the throne, with his second wife, Marguerite of Lorraine. They had been married at first in private, but the union was afterwards publicly acknowledged at Brussels before the Archbishop of Malines. Louis, however, refused to recognise it, inasmuch as it’ had been contracted not only without his consent, but in direct opposition to his commands; and the Cardinal determined that it should be formally annulled. He is said to have had views of family interest in this matter, and to have projected an alliance between the Duke and his niece Madame de Combalet; but the insinuation seems to be unfounded.

There were two grounds upon which the validity of the marriage was impugned; the first was the civil offence designated by the French law “rapt,” the Duke of Lorraine being charged with having unlawfully inveigled Gaston into a connexion which was contrary to the will of his sovereign, and, therefore, to the fundamental laws of the realm; the second was a spiritual offence, the “clandestinite” of the marriage, which, as it affected the conditions essential to one of the Sacraments, belonged to the jurisdiction of the Church.

The French ambassador at Rome was instructed to inform the Pope that his Majesty designed to prosecute the civil suit before his courts of Parliament at Paris, according to the immemorial practice in such cases; but that if his Holiness should think fit to name a commission of French bishops to arbitrate on the religious question, he would stay the action of the secular arm until their decision (which would be virtually that of the Holy See) should be pronounced. Urban declined to take this course; intimating that if he took cognisance of the affair at all, it must be in person, and not through commissioners. Cardinal Barberini hinted his doubts as to the historical authenticity of this “fundamental law of the realm,” which was so confidently appealed to; and compared it to the Salic law, the existence of which had never yet been demonstrated from any ancient record. The ambassador reported to his Government that there was little prospect of assistance from Rome; and Richelieu forthwith carried the cause before the Parliament. The Duke of Lorraine was cited to the bar of that tribunal as a vassal of the French Crown, together with the Princess Marguerite his sister, and the Cardinal of Lorraine, in whose diocese of Toul the marriage had been celebrated. The obedient magistrates, after fulfilling all the requisite formalities, gave sentence on the 5th of September, 1634, declaring the marriage “invalidly contracted,” and condemning the Duke, as guilty of high treason, to the forfeiture of all his fiefs. The civil contract was thus annulled; but the ecclesiastical difficulty still remained. A reconciliation was now effected between Louis and the turbulent Gaston, by which they agreed, among other articles, that the question of the marriage “should be submitted to the ordinary authority to which his Majesty’s subjects were amenable in such cases, according to the laws of the realm”; the Duke engaging, if the judgment should be adverse to him, not to remarry without the king’s consent, while the latter promised that no constraint should be placed upon his Highness’s inclinations with regard to any future alliance. In pursuance of this treaty another attempt was made to induce the Pope to arbitrate in the affair; but Urban was firm. He admitted that the civil contract might be dissolved by civil authority; but insisted that the religious union, resulting from a Sacrament of the Church canonically administered, must remain, nevertheless, intact. Under these circumstances Richelieu applied to the national clergy. A royal message was sent to them at their ordinary meeting in May, 1635, desiring their opinion on the question whether the marriages of princes of the blood, particularly of those who stand nearest in succession to the Crown, can be lawful if made in opposition to the will of the reigning sovereign.” This inquiry was referred by the Assembly to a committee of five members—the Bishops of Montpellier (Fenouillet), Chartres, Seez, St. Malo, and Nimes—all well known for their obsequious devotion to the Cardinal. In order to save appearances, these prelates consulted several leading doctors of the Sorbonne—Lescot, Habert, Duval, Cornet, Isambert, and others—and also the heads of the religious congregations, including the Jesuits and the Oratorians;  and the result of their deliberations was to affirm, almost without a dissentient voice, the invalidity of royal marriages under the circumstances specified. Their report to that effect was presented on the 6th of July. It stated that the civil contract constitutes the “matter” of the Sacrament of Matrimony; that this is subject to alteration, and cannot be legitimate unless it be in conformity with the regulations of the civil authority. In default of such conformity there can be no valid Sacrament. The power of constituting “empêchemens dirimans ” was exercised by heathen emperors, and the same right belongs, consequently, to Christian princes—a right of which the Pope and the bishops cannot deprive them. The custom of France forbids the princes of the blood to marry without permission from the king; and marriages made without his consent are ipso facto illegitimate, invalid, and null. And the said custom is declared to be “reasonable, ancient, confirmed by legal prescription, and authorized by the Church.” The report was adopted, and a decree in the same terms was drawn up and signed officially by the Assembly.

There was, however, one exception to the unanimity of the French clergy on this occasion, which is of sufficient importance to deserve mention; it was the Abbé de St. Cyran. That fearless divine is said to have declared that “he would rather have killed ten men” than be a party to the late resolution of his brethren, which, in his opinion, had “ruined one of the Sacraments of the Church.”  This boldness of speech gave sore umbrage to Richelieu, and was one of the offences afterwards visited without mercy on St. Cyran.

The Queen Mother, Mary de Medici, who at this time was living in exile at Antwerp, no sooner heard of these proceedings at Paris than she wrote to the Pope, beseeching him not to permit the marriage of her son to be dissolved, and inveighing bitterly against the malice of the Cardinal and the measures of the Gallican clergy. Urban ordered his nuncios to remonstrate; and Louis, in reply, begged his Holiness not to give heed to these groundless complaints, which proceeded, he said, solely from the spite of his enemies the Spaniards, whose interest it was to trouble the repose of his kingdom. He would shortly despatch to Home one of the bishops who had been concerned in framing the decree of the Assembly, to explain the reasons of State which had made it necessary to procure the recent declaration from the ecclesiastical body. The envoy chosen for this purpose was Pierre Fenouillef, Bishop of Montpellier, one of the most eminent and zealous of the French prelates. His instructions are detailed at length by Richelieu in his Memoirs. He was ordered to avoid leading the Pope to suppose that the king felt himself in need of his sanction for the step he had taken, as if there were any doubt of its validity without such sanction; but to represent that his Majesty was prompted by reverence and affection for the Holy Father to lay before him the reasons which made it impossible that the pretended marriage of the Duke of Orleans could be recognized or allowed to exist; such an alliance being to the last degree prejudicial to the repose of the kingdom, and, consequently, to the welfare of Christendom. He was to remind the Pope of the manifold misfortunes which had been brought upon France in former days through the ambition of the princes of Lorraine; and to state that the present head of that family had surpassed all others in showing disrespect and animosity against the person of his Majesty, from whom he had received benefits and favours without number. He was to express the king’s confident hope that his Holiness would not oppose the ancient “custom of France” with respect to the marriages of princes of the blood—a custom which had been approved by his predecessors, and confirmed by ecclesiastical canons. He was to point out that neither the Parliament nor the clergy had done anything that savoured of encroachment, or was contrary to lawful precedent; instancing the case of the Empress Judith, wife of Charles the Bald, who had been excommunicated by a Gallican Council, which sentence had not been objected to by the then Pope, Nicolas I. Finally, he was to assure the Pope that the king would gladly have submitted the whole affair to the personal arbitration of his Holiness, but for certain political complications, especially the intrigues of the Spaniards, who were implacable in their jealousy and hatred of France; and that such reference to the Holy See was, after all, scarcely necessary, since the relative powers and prerogatives of the Roman Pontiff and the French Government were distinctly defined by the Concordat.

Fenouillet was graciously received at Rome, and fulfilled his errand with so much tact that Urban expressed himself satisfied, in a political sense, with the course pursued by the French Crown. But he was not to be driven from his view of the indissoluble nature of the marriage considered in its sacramental aspect. The Duke of Orleans, in consequence, con­tinued to insist on the validity of his marriage, though he declared himself perfectly willing to defer to the judgment of the Pope, or to that of a French Council presided over by commissioners named by his Holiness. It was not long, however, before the Cardinal found himself compelled, by various considerations of State interest, to give way upon this question, which had been debated with so much warmth and obstinacy. In January, 1637, an arrangement was entered into with Gaston by which he was permitted to retain his wife, with the king’s publicly expressed approbation, on condition that he would renounce for ever all sympathy with the views and policy of the Duke of Lorraine. The prince accepted the stipulation, was reconciled to his brother, and recovered his honours and domains. Such a conclusion of the affair was by no means creditable to the sincerity of Richelieu; while it left the Assembly of the clergy in a position of awkwardness little to be envied.

The views of the great Cardinal with regard to the exclusive privileges and immunities of the clerical order differed widely from those which prevailed in mediaeval times. His sympathies were with Philip the Fair rather than with Boniface VIII. He refused to admit the argument that, since the Church is essentially independent of the State, therefore the clergy are exempt from the burden of ordinary taxation for the lawful requirements of the Government. Vast sums were demanded and obtained for various public purposes from the ecclesiastical assemblies of 1625, 1628, and 1635, though not without murmuring and remonstrance; and a few years later (Oct. 6, 1640), at a moment when the misunderstanding between Richelieu and the Court of Rome was at its height, a royal edict suddenly exacted from the beneficed clergy a sixth of their entire revenue for the two years next ensuing. This proceeding was justified on the part of the Crown by reasons which were palpably unfair, though wearing a certain air of plausibility. Richelieu had collected, with the help of the Bishop of Chartres, one of his most trusted confidants, a mass of documents from ancient archives, which went to show that Church property, being held in mortmain, belonged, in fact, to the king as lord paramount; that it might be resumed at his pleasure, and reunited to the domaine royal; and that no religious corporation could lawfully acquire any such possessions except by letters patent, which were granted on the payment of an ad valorem duty, called the “ droit d’amortissement.” It was asserted that the clergy had systematically neglected to fulfil this latter condition; and they were now summoned to discharge at once all the arrears which had thus accumulated since the year 1520, when a similar claim had been enforced by Francis I. The debt was assessed at one-sixth of the whole ecclesiastical income for two years; and, accordingly, the Government took measures, without further ceremony, for levying this outrageous impost. No sooner did the royal officers begin to lay violent hands upon the Church’s patrimony, than an agitation arose which it is more easy to conceive than to describe. The voice of remon­strance resounded on all sides; torrents of denunciation were poured forth against the “tyrant,” the “apostate,” who had sacrilegiously trampled on the privileges of the Church, and imposed on her a yoke of servitude hitherto without example. Special prayers were ordered in the churches; strongly worded petitions were forwarded to the Throne ; appeals were made to the Pope for his intervention. The grievance resented by the clergy was not so much the amount of the sum demanded, as the attempt to extort it from them without their own consent in their representative Assembly. They declared themselves ready to contribute their just share to the national exchequer ; but this must be done by the act of their own body, and not by the compulsory fiat of the State. They contended that, in principle, all applications of Church funds to secular purposes were spontaneous, and emanated from the Church herself; and nothing should induce them to yield, unless the form of synodical deliberation and decision were at least outwardly respected in the present instance. The minister, who was now anxiously engaged in his great struggle with the house of Austria, felt that it was time to offer some concession; he signified, therefore, that the king would allow the matter to be discussed in a General Assembly of the clergy, which was ordered to meet for that purpose in the spring of 1641. The sittings commenced on the 15th of February at Paris, but they were afterwards transferred to Mantes, where Richelieu judged that his projects were more likely to be received with favour, since it belonged to the diocese of Chartres, presided over by his friend Leonor d’Etampes.

Stormy scenes characterized the sessions. The majority, led by Charles de Montchal, Archbishop of Toulouse, was violently opposed to the Government; the minority, devoted to Richelieu, were not less resolute, and expressed their sentiments in extravagant language. The Bishop of Autun affirmed, to the horror of his brethren, that all ecclesiastical property belonged to the Crown, and that his Majesty, after making a moderate provision for the support of the clergy, was fully entitled, if he thought proper, to appropriate the surplus. The total subsidy required from the Assembly (including the arrears of “amortissement,” and a special grant in addition towards the expenses of the war) was six millions of livres. This was a vast reduction from the original claim of a sixth of two years’ income; yet the clergy refused to vote it, and it became necessary to resort to extreme measures to enforce their submission. The two presidents, the Archbishops of Sens and Toulouse, together with four bishops, were expelled from their seats by order of the king, and com­manded to retire to their dioceses without passing through Paris. The chamber, thus purged of its refractory members, consented, on the 27th of May, to pay into the treasury five millions; and with this the Government declared itself satisfied.

The Pope embraced the opportunity of intimating his desire for the accommodation of his differences with France. The diplomatic intercourse between the two Courts, which had been suspended since the affair of Marshal d’Estrées, was replaced on the accustomed footing; and a cardinal’s hat, a boon long and importunately demanded on behalf of Mazarin, was despatched as a pledge of reconciliation.

The causes which had rendered the Abbe de St. Cyran an object of suspicion to Richelieu were manifold and of long standing. The Cardinal, while Bishop of Lupon, had made acquaintance with him as an ecclesiastic of the neighbouring diocese of Poitiers, and, with the unerring intuition of genius, had at once recognized his extraordinary powers and gifts. On becoming prime minister, he showed his appreciation of St. Cyran’s merits by offering him various appointments in the Church. He named him, in 1625, principal chaplain to Queen Henrietta Maria on the occasion of her marriage. The abbe having declined the post, the episcopal see of Clermont was next tendered for his acceptance, and declined in like manner; and afterwards other preferments with the same result. Richelieu was piqued by this persistent opposition to his advances. The spirit of independence was precisely that which he could least understand or tolerate; and he began to attribute St. Cyran’s conduct to sinister motives. But he mistook his views and character. That remarkable man was ambitious, but his ambition was not that of common minds; he cared nothing for high station, or wealth, or political influence; but he had an intense thirst for that species of dominion which consists in the authoritative guidance of souls. He was formed to be the oracle of the devout, the super­stitious, the enthusiastic, mind; to enthral tender consciences; to organize and govern a religious party. Such aspirations, as they were gradually manifested, awakened the jealous misgivings of the minister; who felt him to be all the more dangerous in proportion as his sphere of action was mysterious and intangible.

St. Cyran appeared early as an author, and with considerable success. His first theological effort was a reply to the Jesuit Garasse; and all his subsequent works were dictated more or less by the violent antipathy which he cherished against the Society. A volume which he published under the assumed name of “Petrus Aurelius” is esteemed his masterpiece; and of this, as connected with a controversy which excited special interest among the Gallican clergy of the day, it may be desirable to give the reader some account.

In 1625, Urban VIII, taking advantage of the opportunity offered by the marriage of a Catholic princess with the heir apparent of the British Crown, had nominated Richard Smith his Vicar-Apostolic in England; who was thereupon consecrated Bishop of Chalcedon in partibus, and invested with the ordinary diocesan jurisdiction. This prelate, soon after his arrival in England, incurred much odium by enforcing, perhaps more strictly than the circumstances required, the rule which re­strained members of religious Orders, and priests having no cure of souls, from hearing confessions without licence from the ordinary. The Jesuits resented the prohibition, and insisted that, by special privilege granted by the Pope, they were entitled to exercise their ministry wherever they pleased, independently of the diocesan authority. The dispute grew serious, and such was the animosity stirred up against the obnoxious Bishop of Chalcedon, that at length the Government of Charles I proscribed him as an outlaw, and offered a reward for his apprehension. Upon this he made his escape to France, where he met with a kind reception from Cardinal Richelieu.

A sharp theological skirmish followed. Dr. Kellison, Rector of the English College at Douai, came forward in defence of Bishop Smith, and of the episcopate in general. He was answered by Edward Knott, Vice-Provincial of the Jesuits in England, and by John Floyd, another Jesuit, who put forth ‘An Apology for the conduct of the Holy See in the government of the English Catholics.’ The two last-mentioned publications were forthwith translated into French and Latin, and submitted to the Archbishop of Paris and the Theological Faculty. The Archbishop on the 30th of January, 1631, and the Sorbonne on the 6th of February, condemned certain propositions extracted from the works in question as “rash, scandalous, and heretical.” A circular letter to the archbishops and bishops of France was drawn up and signed by thirty-two prelates then assembled at Paris; in which these errors were denounced as tending to disparage and destroy the authority which Christ gave to the rulers of His Church—subversive of the ecclesiastical hierarchy—and derogatory to one of the Sacraments of the Church, namely Confirmation. Some of the statements were even declared to be contrary to the Word of God, the authority of Ecumenical Councils, and the supreme jurisdiction of the successor of St. Peter. The following may be cited as illustrating their general spirit. “It is utterly false, and of dangerous consequence, to say that there must of necessity be a bishop in each particular Church.” “Bishops are necessary for the sole purpose of ordaining priests and deacons.” “Members of the regular Orders belong to the hierarchy absolutely, and not in this or that sense.” “The superiors of religious houses, since they are properly the ordinaries and pastors of their own communities, are in that respect more truly members of the hierarchy than a bishop who is only deputed to act as such in one particular place.” “Catholics who have received the chrism in baptism are perfect Christians in the sense of the Fathers, even though they have not been confirmed by the bishop.” Such doctrines sound strangely indeed from the lips of Catholic divines; nor is it any sufficient extenuation of them to plead that they were only intended to apply to “times of persecution.” The Jesuits, notwithstanding the censure of the bishops and the Parisian Faculty, kept up the controversy with unabated vigour. They attacked the circular letter, which they reviled as a tissue of exaggerations, containing no one proposition that was strictly true, and many that would be totally false even without the aid of hyperbolical language. “Did the French bishops,” they demanded, “ suppose themselves to be more vigilant and more clear-sighted than the Pope and all his Cardinals? The publications upon which they had just passed sentence were perfectly well known at Rome; yet no one there had thought it necessary to open his mouth against them.” The famous Francois Hallier undertook the defence of the Sorbonne on this occasion in his Vindicim censurae sacrae Facultatis, and subsequently in his work De hierarchia. At length, in 1633, Petrus Aurelius made its appearance;—a formidable folio volume, written in a laboured and heavy style, but evincing great intellectual power, a complete mastery of the subject in dispute, and an extraordinary acquaintance with the Fathers and the ancient discipline of the Church. It was generally attributed at the time to the Abbé de St. Cyran, and has ever since been reckoned among his works. St. Cyran never acknowledged the authorship: on the contrary, he usually spoke of it as the composition of another; but there is no doubt that, if not actually penned by his own hand, it was written under his immediate dictation. His nephew Martin de Barcos, who afterwards succeeded him in the abbey of St. Cyran, probably acted as amanuensis, and prepared the work for the press.

‘Petrus Aurelius’ was greeted by a general chorus of applause from the Gallican bishops, the clergy assembled in convocation, and the University of Paris. The Assembly sent a deputation to inquire of Filesac, dean of the Theological Faculty, whether he could tell them the real name of the author; in order that they might express to him their high sense of his merits, and offer him some substantial token of their gratitude. Filesac replied, “on the faith of a priest,” that he did not know who Petrus Aurelius was; but that since he had thought fit to forego, by remaining concealed, the fame and honour which were clearly his due, he was not likely, in his (Filesac’s) opinion, to quit his incognito for the sake of any pecuniary recompense. He probably desired no greater reward for his labours than to be assured of the favourable verdict of so celebrated an Assembly, and so many distinguished personages. The Jesuits, upon whom Petrus Aurelius had bestowed no small amount of sharp vituperation, complained to the King of this treatment, and demanded that the work should be suppressed; but in vain. They continued their libellous attacks upon the prelates and the Assembly of clergy, and were at length called to account for their conduct; upon which they disavowed, without hesitation, the writings of their English brethren, as well as the more recent publications in France; declaring, in a document addressed to the bishops on the 23rd of March, 1633, that the works in question were not composed by members of their Society, and lamenting that subjects so fertile in dissension should ever have been mooted. The disingenuousness of this proceeding requires no comment. It served its turn, however; for the bishops, though not altogether satisfied, accepted the disclaimer, and the Jesuits escaped further animadversion. The Court of Rome interposed at the same moment to throw its protecting shield round these unscrupulous champions of its supremacy. A decree of the Congregation of the Index prohibited the continuance of the controversy, though without pronouncing any decision upon the merits of the question. All publications relating to it were summarily suppressed; and the faithful were admonished not to write or dispute thenceforward upon these topics, under pain of excommunication ipso facto. The Gallican divines exclaimed loudly against this mandate, arguing that, if it were enforced to the letter, many unquestionable Catholic verities could no longer be publicly insisted on;—for instance, that the privileges granted to Regulars may be revoked by the Pope; that bishops are superior to monks; that it is necessary for every Church to have episcopal government; that the baptized are not perfect Christians unless they be also confirmed. And if such truths as these might not be taught authoritatively, occasion would be given to heretics to triumph, and to charge the Church with tolerating manifest error.

It is curious to observe, in glancing at the subsequent history of the writings of Petrus Aurelius, that, although welcomed with such enthusiasm on their first appearance, they did not permanently retain a high place in the estimation of the clergy. In 1635, as we have said, the work called forth warm encomiums from the Assembly, and was pronounced signally serviceable to the Church. In 1641, although the reputed author was then a prisoner at Vincennes, a new edition was printed by order and at the expense of the clergy; copies of which were presented to all the archbishops and bishops, and to all the deputies of the Assembly. This was resented by the Government; Vitre, printer to the Assembly, was apprehended, and all the remain­ing copies were seized and confiscated. When the time came for the next meeting of the clergy, Louis XIII and his great minister were in the grave; and a new order of things had succeeded, under Anne of Austria as Regent, and Mazarin as director of her councils. The clergy now remonstrated with the Government for the indignity done to their order by the violent suppression of a work which they had stamped with special approval; and demanded that the copies abstracted by the police should be restored. This could not be complied with, since it appeared that the books had been thrown into a damp garret, where they had mouldered and perished; but the Chancellor Seguier offered to sanction the issue of a third edition of ‘Petrus Aurelius.’ This was accordingly published in 1646, and was prefaced by a magnificent eloge of the author, in the graceful Latinity of Godeau, Bishop of Vence. “The Gallican Church exulted in this memorable vindication of the authority of the Fathers, and congratulated the writer on having so triumphantly exposed and confuted the errors, falsehoods, and calumnies of his adversaries; thus answering fools, as Holy Scripture enjoins, according to their folly. The clergy knew not which of his varied gifts was most to be admired;—his vast ecclesiastical learning, his majesty of style, his sagacity in detecting the artifices of opponents, his weight of argument in attacking error, his candour in the assertion of truth, his felicity in expounding the abstruse mysteries of faith, his ardent love toward the spouse of Christ, his sincere and unaffected humility.”

If, however, we look ten years forward, we shall find that these sentiments of his brethren towards Petrus Aurelius had during that interval undergone a serious alteration. In 1656, France was convulsed from one end to the other by the agita­tion of the Jansenist controversy; and Rome had condemned, by two successive bulls, that theological system of which St. Cyran was the foremost upholder. The clerical Assembly of that year disclaimed and revoked the acclamations which had been lavished upon Petrus Aurelius on former occasions; suppressed the “elogium” of the accomplished Bishop of Vence; and even required the editors of the ‘Gallia Christiana’ to expunge a laudatory notice of St. Cyran which they had inserted in that great national work. The cause of this self-contradiction must be sought chiefly in the political and religious complications of the time. In 1656, the name of St. Cyran had become notorious as that of one whose unhappy speculations had stirred up internecine strife in the very bosom of the Church,—a strife of which none could foresee the end, and which threatened the Gallican Communion with all the miseries of open schism. Under these circumstances the clergy did not hesitate to abandon Petrus Aurelius, at the expense of their own consistency, in order to avoid all complicity with one who, however learned, however meritorious in days gone by, was now to be looked upon in the light of a dangerous innovator and propagator of heresy. Moreover, it had probably been discovered, on closer inspection, that St. Cyran’s views as to the hierarchy were of a somewhat democratic cast; that while he exalted the bishops in their relationship to the Pope, he at the same time exaggerated the powers and prerogatives of the priesthood in reference to their diocesans; fostering thereby an insubordinate spirit and contempt of discipline.

It will be observed that in his great work on the Episcopate St. Cyran espoused the Gallican side, which accorded in the main with the sentiments of Richelieu. Nevertheless, the imputations under which he laboured upon other matters were so serious as to create an insurmountable prejudice against him in the mind of the minister. Besides declaring himself directly in opposition to Richelieu on the question of the marriage of the Duke of Orleans, he had publicly contradicted him on a point of theology relating to the discipline of the confessional, upon which he was especially sensitive. The Cardinal, in a Catechism which he drew up for the use of his diocese of Luçon, had stated (according to the ordinary teaching of Roman divines) that “attrition,” an inferior degree of mental sorrow, arising chiefly from the fear of punishment, is sufficient for acceptable penitence and for sacramental absolution. St. Cyran combated this, and asserted the necessity of “contrition,”—true and deep repentance, accompanied by the love of God—in order to the forgiveness of sin. And since it is universally acknowledged that by such contrition the sinner becomes justified in God’s sight, the inference was drawn, though unfairly, that he did not believe in the efficiency and necessity of the Sacrament of Penance. Thus St. Cyran gained the invidious character of a man bent on overturning the established doctrine of the Church; while his position as spiritual director at Port Royal gave him opportunities of continually widening and deepening the sphere of his influence. But the proximate cause which determined Richelieu to proceed actively against him seems to have been political rather than religious. A treatise had appeared in 1633 entitled Mars Gallicus, sive de justitia armoruni et foederum regis Galliae. It was by Jansenius, the bosom friend of St. Cyran; and abounded with incisive criticism on the administration of Richelieu, denouncing with special bitterness the unnatural confederacy of Catholic France with the heretical states of Germany. The work found favour in the eyes of Philip IV of Spain, who, in testimony of the author’s services, promoted him soon afterwards to the bishopric of Ypres. In 1638 a French translation of the ‘Mars Gallicus’ was published by Hersent, the same who has been already noticed as author of the ‘Optatus Gallus.’ The confidential relations subsisting between St. Cyran and the Flemish prelate being well known, his enemies seized the opportunity thus offered of ruining him with the Cardinal by identifying him with an offensive production in which he had no real share whatever. They were fully successful. On the 14th of May, 1638, St. Cyran was arrested at his lodging in Paris, and imprisoned in the donjon of Vincennes. His friends besieged the Palais-Cardinal with intercessions in his favour; the Secretary of State Chavigny, the Bishops of Beauvais and Pamiers, the Duchess of Aiguillon (Richelieu’s niece), and even the saintly Vincent de Paul, earnestly pleaded for his liberation; but the Minister was inexorable. “I tell you,” said he, “this man is more dangerous than six armies. If Luther and Calvin had been placed in durance in good time, so as to stop their public teaching, all Germany and all France would have been Catholic at this moment.” Father Seguenot, an Oratorian, was sent at the same time to the Bastille. He had translated St. Augustine’s treatise De Virginitate, with notes; in which he depreciated the sanctity of the monastic life, attacked the system of religious vows, and broached extreme views on the vexed question of “ attrition and contrition.” His language on these points is said to have been transcribed verbatim from the writings of St. Cyran.

Every exertion was now made to obtain evidence to convict St. Cyran of heresy, and thus to destroy for ever his character as a religious teacher. Laubardemont, the Councillor of State before mentioned as deep in the confidence of Richelieu, was commissioned to examine witnesses for this purpose; he commenced his task at once at Port Royal, and received depositions from various persons of both sexes, all apparently of average credit, while some of them were on terms of friendship with the prisoner.

Tardif, an advocate of the Parliament of Paris, Madlle. d’Aquaviva, daughter of the Duc d’Atry, the Abbé de Prières, the Abbé de Portmorant, Caulet, afterwards the celebrated Bishop of Pamiers, and Vigier, Superior of the Frères de la Doctrine Chrètienne, were among those interrogated as to the orthodoxy of St. Cyran; and to these we must add the Bishop of Langres, the Archbishop of Sens, and Vincent de Paul, who sent their testimonies privately to Richelieu. No precise account can be given of the results of the investigation, inasmuch as the records of the proceedings are obviously coloured by the strong party spirit of the day. So far as can be ascertained, nothing was proved against St. Cyran to substantiate the charge of heresy. His weak points were brought to light in the course of the enquiry; these seem to have been intemperateness of language, self-sufficiency, a sovereign contempt for the current theology of his own time, and the habit (singular in a man so deeply learned) of relying too exclusively on St. Augustine, disregarding in comparison the general stream of Church tradition. Vincent de Paul was summoned before M. de Lescot, under a commission from the Archbishop of Paris, and closely questioned as to the contents of a letter written to him by St. Cyran in 1637. He gave his evidence reluctantly, and with a visible leaning towards the prisoner; so that nothing was elicited upon which any serious accusation could be founded. It appeared that St. Cyran had let fall some indiscreet expressions in disparagement of the Council of Trent, and other uncomplimentary reflexions on the existing state of things in the Church. The prisoner himself subsequently underwent an examination by Lescot in his cell; on which occasion, if D’Avrigny is to be credited, he showed himself no mean proficient in the arts of prevarication. He excused his conduct in one case by remarking that men often maintain in theory principles which they contradict in practice; and that, although he might desire, “by a first intention,” the restoration of the ancient discipline, yet “by a second intention” he might judge it right to depart from this standard, and accommodate himself to the prevailing dispositions of mankind. In another difficulty he pleaded that he had employed the figure Catachresis, which signifies an abuse of. language; and added that if he had sometimes erred in this respect, much ought to be pardoned in one of his impetuous nature, who could not always keep his tongue under control.

Even if St. Cyran had been guilty of all that was imputed to him, there was nothing to justify his detention in prison; nor was any attempt made to found a legal prosecution on the result of these enquiries. He bore his captivity with exemplary fortitude. It lasted nearly five years, and was terminated only by the death of Richelieu. More than once it was intimated to the prisoner that he might obtain his liberty on condition of giving satisfaction on certain points, especially on the much- contested doctrine of attrition and contrition. But St. Cyran could not reconcile such compliance with his conscience, and preferred the loss of liberty to the sacrifice of principle. During his confinement he wrote his Lettres Chrètiennes et Spirituelles, which have been many times reprinted; and he continued to wield, perhaps all the more powerfully because he was suffering persecution, that wonderful empire which he possessed over religiously-disposed minds in all classes of society. It was at Vincennes that he received the visits of Antoine Arnauld, at that time a divinity student preparing for his degrees at the Sorbonne; upon whom his counsels wrought such a profound impression, that he renounced his prospects of professional renown, resigned his preferments, and not long afterwards joined the band of ascetic solitaries who had installed themselves in the cloisters of Port Royal des Champs. Another convert made by St. Cyran during his imprisonment was Henri Arnauld de Luzançi, an officer in the army, son of M. Arnauld d’Andilly, and nephew of the great Antoine. He held an appointment in the household of Richelieu, and might reasonably have aspired to the highest honours; but such considerations were not proof against the rhetoric of the captive confessor. De Luzançi submitted to St. Cyran’s guidance as to that of a voice from Heaven; relinquished without a sigh his position in the gay world of Paris, and would not be satisfied till he had obtained admittance among the pious hermits of the valley of Chevreuse.

The formation of a society of men capable by their talents, their learning, their absolute self-devotion, of counterbalancing the power of the Jesuits, had been for years uppermost in the mind of St. Cyran. It was from the Arnauld family, over whom his ascendency was boundless, that he chose his first instruments in the execution of this scheme. Antoine Lemaitre was a nephew of the Abbess Angelique and of Antoine Arnauld. Lemaitre, at the age of twenty-eight, had acquired an extraordinary reputation as a barrister, and was rapidly advancing towards the highest dignities of the profession. St. Cyran set his heart upon effecting the conversion of this gifted advocate. He succeeded in dissuading him from an advantageous marriage which would have attached him by permanent ties to the world. This triumph gained, no pains were spared to convince him of the glory and blessedness of a life of devout and ascetic seclusion. By degrees Lemaitre yielded to these impressions; and at length the solemn ministrations of St. Cyran at the deathbed of Madame Arnauld d’Andilly, his aunt, touched a chord which vibrated with irresistible sympathy through his inmost soul. A few months afterwards he resigned his appointments, abandoned his profession, and retired to Port Royal, where he became the first of the famous “Solitaires.” Such an example was not likely, in that age and country, to remain without imitators. Lemaitre was joined successively by his younger brother Lemaitre de Sericourt; by Antoine Singlin, a priest who had been trained under the eye of Vincent de Paul; and by Claude Lancelot, of the Seminary of St. Nicolas de Chardonnet. Others followed after some interval. Isaac Lemaitre de Sacy, one of the most accomplished Biblical scholars of the day; the great Antoino Arnauld; and Robert Arnauld d’Andilly, a considerable landed proprietor and the head of the family.

These multiplied testimonies to the force of St. Cyran’s genius were not lost upon the Church at large. He was recognized alike by friend and foe as the leader of a great religious movement, which, if it once gained sufficient scope for development, must work important changes, whether for good or evil, in the prevailing system of belief and discipline. While Richelieu lived, such opportunity was rigorously withheld. The Cardinal was keenly alive to the dangers of any renewal of the predestinarian controversy, which had already been so prolific of disorder in the Church; and that especially when it was certain to be complicated with other aims and interests of a far more practical nature. So long as he retained the reins of power, all attempt at agitation in this direction was resolutely suppressed. The walls of Vincennes guaranteed the harmlessness of St. Cyran; and his disciples showed no eagerness to commit themselves to any energetic course of action in the absence of their master. But Richelieu’s tenure of authority was drawing to a close. He expired on the 4th December, 1642; displaying in his last moments a tranquillity, firmness, and confidence, which inspired some of those who witnessed the scene with admiration, others with affright. The situation of affairs changed forthwith. The new ministers, though professing to adopt the principles of their predecessor, found it expedient to relax in some measure the severity of his internal government. Many personages of distinction, who for years had pined in captivity under the vengeance of the Cardinal, were discharged from the state prisons; and among the rest St. Cyran recovered his liberty. He quitted Vincennes on the 16th of February, 1643, and went direct to the monastery of Port Royal of Paris, where Angelique Arnauld and her sisterhood had been so long beseeching Heaven for his deliverance. Next he proceeded to visit the recluses of Port Royal des Champs. A touching account of his intercourse with them on this occasion is given in the Memoirs of Fontaine, who was one of the fraternity, and acted as secretary to Antoine Arnauld. St. Cyran seems to have been deeply impressed with the belief that he was giving them his parting instructions, and that his removal from the world was at hand. His presentiment proved true; this extraordinary man breathed his last at Paris on the 11th of October, 1643. He was buried at the Church of St. Jacques du Haut Pas; the Archbishop of Bordeaux and four other prelates, together with many lay friends of the highest rank, assisting at his obsequies.   

Several prominent actors on the stage of public life in France disappeared almost simultaneously. Louis XIII, his mother Mary de Medici, Cardinal Richelieu, and the Abbe de St. Cyran, all passed away within the space of a single year. Louis was consoled on his deathbed by the ministrations of Vincent de Paul, for whom he had always entertained sentiments of special veneration. Two subjects are said to have weighed heavily on the conscience of the dying monarch; the conversion of the Huguenots, and the responsibility of nominating to the highest church preferments. “Oh! M. Vincent,” he exclaimed, “if God should restore me to health, I would never appoint any man a bishop who had not passed three years with you!” Louis expired on the 14th of May, 1643. Throughout life he had been under the spiritual dominion of the Jesuits. Fathers Cotton, Arnoux, Seguiran, Suffren, Caussin, Sirmond, and Dinet, successively acted as directors of the royal conscience, and displayed no common gifts of tact and discretion in the fulfilment of their office. It was most probably by the advice of the last-named confessor that the state prisoners were liberated after the death of Richelieu.

CHAPTER XI.

COMMENCEMENT OF THE JANSENICTIC CONTROVERSY