CHAPTER VII

THE AGE OF ABSOLUTISM AND UNBELIEF

NEW CONTROVERSIES AND ERRORS

The centralisation movement, that began in the fifteenth century, andthat tended to increase the power of the sovereign at the expense ofthe lesser nobles and of the people, was strengthened and developed bythe religious revolt. The Protestant reformers appealed to the civilrulers for assistance against the ecclesiastical authorities, and inreturn for the aid given to them so generously they were willing toconcede to the king all power in civil and ecclesiastical matters.Thenceforth the princes were to be so supreme in spirituals as well asin temporals that their right to determine the religion of theirsubjects was recognised as a first principle of government. During thedays of the Counter-Reformation, when religious enthusiasm was arousedto its highest pitch, the Catholic sovereigns of Europe fought not somuch for the aggrandisement of their own power as for the unity oftheir kingdoms and the defence of the religion of their fathers,threatened as it was with complete overthrow.

But once the first fervour had passed away, and once it was recognisedthat religious harmony could not be secured by the sword, Catholicsovereigns began to understand that the Protestant theory of statesupremacy meant an increase of power to the crown, and might beutilised to reduce the only partially independent institution in theirkingdoms to a state of slavery. Hence they increased their demands,interfered more and more in ecclesiastical matters, set themselves todiminish the jurisdiction of the Pope by means of the /Royal Placet/and other such legal contrivances, and asserted for themselves as muchauthority as could be reconciled with Catholic principles interpretedin their most liberal sense. They urged the bishops to assert theirindependence against the Holy See, and the bishops, forgetful of thefact that freedom from Rome meant enslavement by the State,co-operated willingly in carrying out the programme of their royalmasters. Men like Bossuet, carried away by the new theories of thedivine right of kings, aimed at reducing the power of Rome to ashadow. They were more anxious to be considered national patriots thangood Catholics. They understood only when it was too late that intheir close union with the Holy See lay their only hope of resistingstate aggression, and that by weakening the authority of the Pope theywere weakening the one power that could defend their own rights andthe rights of the Church. Their whole policy tended to the realisationof the system of national churches, and were it not for the divineprotection guaranteed by Christ to the society that He Himself hadfounded, their policy might have been crowned with success.

The principle, too, of individual judgment introduced by the Reformerswas soon pushed to its logical conclusions. If by means of thisprinciple Luther and his disciples could reject certain doctrines andpractices that had been followed for centuries by the whole CatholicChurch, why could not others, imitating the example that had beengiven to them, set aside many of the dogmas retained by Luther asbeing only the inventions of men, and why could their successors notgo further still, and question the very foundation of Christianityitself? The results of this unbridled liberty of thought madethemselves felt in religion, in philosophy, in politics, inliterature, and in art. Rationalism became fashionable in educatedcircles, at the courts, and at the universities. Even Catholics whostill remained loyal to the Church were not uninfluenced by the spiritof religious indifference. It seemed to them that many of the dogmasand devotions of the Church were too old-fashioned, and required to bemodernised. The courts in many cases favoured the spread of theseanti-religious views because they meant the weakening of the power ofthe Church. They joined with the apostles of rationalism in attackingthe Society of Jesus, because the rationalists realised that theJesuits were their strongest opponents, while the politicians believedthem to be the most strenuous supporters of the jurisdiction of Rome.It was only when the storm of revolution was about to burst overEurope that the civil rulers understood fully the dangerous tendencyof the movement which they had encouraged. They began to open theireyes to the fact that war against Christianity meant war againstestablished authority, and that the unbridled liberty of thought andspeech which had been tolerated was likely to prove more dangerous tothe cause of monarchy than to the cause of religion.

(a) Gallicanism.

Richer, /De ecclesiastica et politica potestate/, 1611. Puyol, /Edm. Richer, Etude sur la renovation du gallicanisme au XVIIe siecle/, 2 vols., 1877. Lavisse, /Histoire de France/ (vii.), 1905. Bossuet, /Defensio declarationis cleri gallicani/ (ed. 1885). Gerin, /Recherches historiques sur l'assemblee de 1682/, 1878. De Maistre, /De L'Eglise gallicane/, 1821. Gerin, /Louis XIV. et le Saint-Siege/, 1894. Mention, /Documents relatifs au rapport du clerge avec la royaute de 1682 a 1705/, 1893. Picot, /Memoires pour servir a l'histoire ecclesiastique pendan le XVIIIe siecle/, 7 vols., 1853-57.

For centuries France had been the zealous defender of the Church andof the Holy See. From the days of Clovis the French nation had neverwavered in its allegiance to the successors of Saint Peter, many ofwhom had been obliged to seek refuge on the soil of France. In returnfor this support given ungrudgingly in many a dangerous crisis,several important privileges were conferred by the Popes on the Frenchrulers, in which privileges moderate supporters of Gallicanism wereinclined to seek the origin and best explanation of the so-calledGallican Liberties. But the extreme Gallicans, realising that such adefence could avail but little against the Pope, who could recall whathis predecessors had granted, maintained that the Gallican Libertieswere but the survival of the liberty possessed by individual churchesin the early centuries, that these liberties had been restrictedgradually by the Holy See, which succeeded in reducing the nationalchurches to servitude, and that the French Church alone had withstoodthese assaults, and had maintained intact the discipline andconstitution of the apostolic age. The rulers of France, well awarethat every restriction upon the authority of the Church meant anincrease of the power of the Crown, gladly fostered this movement,while the French bishops, unconscious of the fact that independence ofRome meant servitude to the king, allowed themselves to be used astools in carrying out the programme of state absolutism.

The Pragmatic Sanction of Louis IX., referred to by many writers asthe first indication of Gallicanism, is admitted by all scholars to bea forgery. The exorbitant demands formulated by Philip the Fair duringhis quarrel with Boniface VIII. are the first clear indication of theGallican theory that confronts the historian. The principles laid downby the rulers of France during this quarrel were amplifiedconsiderably in the writings of William of Occam, Jean of Jandun, andMarsilius of Padua, and were reduced to definite form in the time ofthe Great Western Schism. At that time, mainly owing to the influenceof Gerson, D'Ailly, and other French leaders, the doctrine of thesuperiority of a General Council over the Pope was accepted, andreceived official confirmation in the decrees of the fourth and fifthsessions of the Council of Constance (1414-17), and in the Council ofBasle (1431-6). The decrees passed by the Synod of Bourges (1438) werestrongly anti-papal, and despite of the efforts of Nicholas V. and hissuccessors to procure their withdrawal most of them remained in forcetill the Concordat of 1516. Partly owing to this Concordat, by whichthe right of nomination to all bishoprics and abbacies in France wassecured to the Crown, and partly to the strong feeling aroused inFrance during the conflict with Calvinism, little was heard ofGallicanism during the sixteenth century. It was mainly, however, as aresult of the opposition of the French bishops that the decree of theCouncil of Florence regarding papal supremacy was not renewed at theCouncil of Trent, and it was in great measure due to the influence ofGallican principles that the decrees of the Council of Trent were notreceived in France for years.

Gallicanism was renewed in the beginning of the seventeenth century byEdmund Richer (1559-1631), syndic of the Paris University and editorof the works of Gerson. He was a man who held novel views about theconstitution both of Church and State, and who professed his sincereadmiration for Gerson's exposition of the relations that should existbetween a General Council and the Pope. In 1610 one of the Dominicanstudents undertook to defend publicly the supremacy and infallibilityof the Pope, whereupon a violent controversy broke out, but it wassettled for a time by the prudent intervention of Cardinal Du Perron.The Parliament of Paris, however, undertook the defence of Richer andof the work that he published in explanation of his theories. In thisbook, /De Ecclesiastica et Politica Potestate/ (1611) he laid it downthat the Church was a limited not an absolute monarchy; that the wholelegislative power rested in the hands of the hierarchy, composedaccording to him of both bishops and parish priests; that thislegislative power should be exercised in a General Council, which asrepresenting the entire hierarchy was the repository of infallibility,and was not subject to the Pope; that the power of executing thedecrees of General Councils and of carrying on the administration ofthe Church rested in the hands of the Pope, who could not act contraryto the canons; that neither Pope nor hierarchy could undertake toenforce ecclesiastical decrees by any other means except persuasion;and that if force were required it could be exercised only by the headof the State, who was the natural protector of the Church, andresponsible to God for the due observance of the canons.

This book was condemned by the provincial Synod of Sens, held underthe presidency of Cardinal Du Perron in 1612, by the provincial Synodof Aix, by the Bishop of Paris, and by the Pope. The Parliament ofParis, however, supported Richer, who lodged an appeal with the civilauthorities against the action of the bishops, and sought to securefor his theories the support of the Sorbonne. Though forced by theking to resign his office at the University he continued to defend hisviews stubbornly till 1629, when for political rather than forreligious reasons he was called upon by Cardinal Richelieu to sign acomplete recantation. Shortly before his death in 1631 he declared inthe presence of several witnesses that this submission was made freelyand from conviction, but some papers written by him and discoveredafter his death make it very difficult to believe that theseprotestations were sincere.

The writings of Pithou, Richer, and Dupuy, and above all the risinginfluence of the Jansenist party helped to spread the Gallicanteaching among the French clergy, and to make them more willing toyield obedience to the king than to the Pope. The Abbot of St. Cyranattacked the authority of the Holy See, but fortunately the extremenature of his views, and the need felt by both the priests and thebishops of France for the intervention of the Holy See against theJansenists, served to restrain the anti-papal feeling, and to keep theleading theological writers, like Duval, Du Perron, Ysambert andAbelly, free from any Gallican bias. The accession of Louis XIV.(1661) marked a new era in the history of the Gallican Liberties. Hewas young, headstrong, anxious to extend the territories of France,and determined to assert his own supreme authority at all costs. WithLouis XIV. firmly seated on the French throne, and with the Jansenistparty intriguing in the Parliament of Paris, which had shown itselfhostile to papal claims, it was not difficult to predict that therelations with the Holy See were likely to become unfriendly. The Dukeof Crequi,[1] Louis XIV.'s ambassador at Rome, set himselfdeliberately to bring about a complete rupture. Owing to an attackmade by some Corsicans of the papal guard on the French embassy, theambassador refused to accept any apology and left Rome, while LouisXIV. dismissed the nuncio at Paris, occupied the papal territories ofAvignon and Venaissin, and despatched an army against the PapalStates. Alexander VII. was obliged to yield to force, and to acceptthe very humiliating terms imposed upon him by the Peace of Pisa(1664).

The Jansenist party and the enemies of the Holy See took advantage ofthe policy of Louis XIV. to push forward their designs. A violentclamour was raised in 1661 against a thesis defended in the Jesuitschools (/Thesis Claromontana/) in favour of papal infallibility, anda still more violent clamour ensued when it was maintained in a publicdefence at the Sorbonne (1663) that the Pope has supreme jurisdictionover the Church, and that General Councils, though useful for thesuppression of heresy, are not necessary. The Jansenist party appealedto the Parliament of Paris, which issued a prohibition againstteaching or defending the doctrine of papal infallibility, but themajority of the doctors of the Sorbonne stood by their opinion, andrefused to register the decree of Parliament. The opponents of theSorbonne, hastening to avenge this first defeat, denounced the defenceof a somewhat similar thesis by a Cistercian student as a violation ofthe prohibition. The syndic of the university was suspended from hisoffice for six months, and the university itself was threatened withvery serious reforms unless it consented to accept the Gallicantheories. As a result of the interference of intermediaries adeclaration satisfactory to the Parliament was issued by the doctorsof the faculty (1663). In this document they announced that it was notthe teaching of the university that the Pope had any authority overthe king in temporal matters, that he was superior to a GeneralCouncil, or that he was infallible in matters of faith without theconsent of a General Council. On the contrary, they asserted that itwas the teaching of the university that in temporal affairs the kingwas subject only to God, that his subjects could not be dispensed fromtheir allegiance to him by any power on earth, and that the rights andliberties of the Gallican Church must be respected. This decree wassigned by seventy-seven doctors, and was published by the Parliamentas the teaching of the entire theological faculty and as a guide thatshould be followed in all theological schools. A violent agitation wasbegun against all who attempted to uphold the rights of the Holy Seeeither in public disputations or in published works, an agitation thatwas all the more inexplicable, owing to the fact that at this timeboth the king and Parliament were endeavouring to persuade theJansenists to accept as infallible the decrees by which the Pope hadcondemned their teaching.

Before this agitation had died away a new cause of dissension had cometo the front in the shape of the /Regalia/. By the term /Regalia/ wasmeant the right of the King of France to hold the revenues of vacantSees and abbacies, and to appoint to benefices during the vacancy, anduntil the oath of allegiance had been taken by the new bishops and hadbeen registered. Such a privilege was undoubtedly bad for religion,and though it was tolerated for certain grave reasons by the secondGeneral Council of Lyons (1274), a decree of excommunication waslevelled against anyone, prince or subject, cleric or layman, whowould endeavour to introduce it or to abet its introduction into thoseplaces where it did not already exist. Many of the provinces of Francehad not been subject to the /Regalia/ hitherto, but in defiance of thelaw of the Church Louis XIV. issued a royal mandate (1673-75),claiming for himself the /Regalia/ in all dioceses of France, andcommanding bishops who had not taken the oath of allegiance to take itimmediately and to have it registered.

The bishops of France submitted to this decree with two exceptions.These were Pavillon, bishop of Alet, and Caulet, bishop of Pamiers,both of whom though attached to the Jansenist party were determined tomaintain the rights of the Church. The king, regardless of theirprotests, proceeded to appoint to benefices in their dioceses on theground that they had not registered their oath of allegiance. Theyreplied by issuing excommunication against all those who accepted suchappointments, and, when their censures were declared null and void bytheir respective metropolitans, they appealed to the Holy See. Duringthe contest Pavillon of Alet died, and the whole brunt of the strugglefell upon his companion. The latter was encouraged by the activeassistance of Innocent XI., who quashed the sentence of themetropolitans, encouraged the bishop and chapter to resist, andthreatened the king with the censures of the Church unless he desistedfrom his campaign (1678-79). The bishop himself died, but the chaptershowed its loyalty to his injunctions by appointing a vicar-capitularin opposition to the vicar-capitular nominated by the king. A mostviolent persecution was begun against the vicar-capitular and theclergy who remained loyal to him. Both on account of the importantinterests at stake and the courage displayed by the opponents of theking the contest was followed with great interest not only in Franceitself but throughout the Catholic world. While feeling was thusrunning high another event happened in Paris that added fuel to theflame. The Cistercian nuns at Charonne were entitled according totheir constitution to elect their own superioress, but de Harlay,Archbishop of Paris, acting in conformity with the orders of LouisXIV. endeavoured to force upon the community a superioress belongingto an entirely different order. The nuns appealed to Innocent XI., whoannulled the appointment and insisted upon a free canonical election(1680). The Parliament of Paris set side the papal sentence, and whenthis interference was rejected by the Pope, the papal document wassuppressed.

In view of the difficulties that had arisen an extraordinary meetingof the bishops of France was summoned. Fifty-two of them met in Paris(March-May, 1681). The two leading men in favour of the king wereFrancis de Harlay, Archbishop of Paris, and Le Tellier, Archbishop ofRheims. Acting under the influence of these men the bishops agreedthat it was their duty to submit to the claims of the crown in regardto the /Regalia/; they condemned the interference of the Pope infavour of the Paris community of Cistercian nuns as well as his actionagainst the metropolitan of the Bishop of Pamiers; and they expressedthe opinion that a general assembly of the clergy of France should becalled to discuss the whole situation.

The General Assembly consisting of thirty-four bishops and thirty-seven priests elected to represent the entire body of the Frenchclergy met at Paris (October 1681-July 1682). The most prominent menof the Assembly were Francis de Harlay of Paris, Le Tellier of Rheims,Colbert of Rouen, Choisseul of Tournay, and Bossuet, the recentlyappointed Bishop of Meaux. The latter, whose reputation as a preacherhad already spread throughout France, delivered the opening address,which was moderate in tone, and not unfriendly to the rights of theHoly See though at the same time strongly pro-Gallican. Certain minorrights claimed by the king having been abandoned, the bishopsgratefully accepted the /Regalia/, and despatched a letter to the Popeurging him to yield to the royal demands for the sake of peace. Butthe Pope, more concerned for the liberty of the French bishops thanthey were themselves, reminded them sharply of their duty to theChurch, while at the same time he refused to follow their advice. Intheir reply to the Pope the bishops took occasion to praise the spiritof religious zeal shown by Louis XIV., who, according to them, wasforced reluctantly to take up the gauge of battle that had been thrownat his feet by Rome. Meantime an attempt was made by the Assembly toformulate definitely the Gallican liberties. These were:--

(1) That Saint Peter and his successors have received jurisdictiononly over spiritual things. Kings are not subject to them in temporalmatters, nor can the subjects of kings be released from their oath ofallegiance by the Pope.

(2) That the plenitude of power in spiritual things by the Holy Seedoes not contradict the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions ofthe Council of Constance, which decrees, having been passed by aGeneral Council and approved by the Pope, were observed by theGallican church.

(3) That the apostolic authority of the Roman Church must be exercisedin accordance with the canons inspired by the Holy Ghost, and with therules, constitutions, and customs of the Gallican Church.

(4) That though the Pope has the chief part in determining questionsof faith, and though his decrees have force in the entire Church andin each particular church, yet his decisions are not irreformable, atleast until they are approved by the verdict of the entire Church.

This Declaration (the Four Gallican Articles) was approved by theking, who ordered that it should be observed by all teachers andprofessors, and should be accepted by all candidates for theologicaldecrees. Although the Archbishop of Paris recommended warmly theacceptance of the Gallican Articles the doctors of the Sorbonneoffered strong opposition to the new royal theology, so that it wasonly after recourse had been had to the most violent expedients thatthe consent of one hundred and sixty-two doctors could be obtained,while the majority against the Gallican Articles was over fivehundred. The decision of the minority was published as the decision ofthe faculty, and steps were taken at once to remove the opponents ofthe articles, and to make the Sorbonne strongly Gallican in itsteaching. While protests against the articles poured in from differentuniversities and from many of the countries of Europe the Pope keptsilent; but when two priests, who took part in the Assembly of 1682,were nominated for vacant bishoprics Innocent XI. refused to appointthem until they should have expressed regret for their action. Theking would not permit them to do so, nor would he allow the others whowere nominated to accept their appointments from the Pope, and as aresult in 1688 thirty-five of the French Sees had been left withoutbishops.

In this same year another incident occurred that rendered therelations between the Pope and Louis XIV. even more strained. Theright of asylum possessed by various ambassadors at the papal courthad become a very serious abuse. Formerly it was attached only to theresidence of the ambassador, but in the course of time it was extendeduntil it included the whole of the quarter in which the embassy wassituated, with the result that it became impossible for the guardiansof the peace to carry out their duties. For this reason the right ofasylum was suppressed by the Pope. All the other nations submitted tosuch a reasonable restriction, but Louis XIV., anxious rather toprovoke than to avoid a quarrel, refused to abandon the privilege. Hesent as his ambassador to Rome (1687) the Marquis de Lavardin, whoentered Rome at the head of a force of five hundred armed men, andwhose conduct from first to last was so outrageous that Innocent XI.was obliged to excommunicate him, and to lay the Church of Saint Louisunder interdict. Immediately Louis XIV. occupied Avignon andVenaissin, assembled an army in Southern France to be despatchedagainst the Papal States, and ordered that an appeal to a futureGeneral Council should be prepared for presentation. Twenty-six of thebishops expressed their approval of this appeal, and so successful hadbeen the dragooning of the university that nearly all the facultiesadopted a similar attitude (1688).

For a time it seemed as if a schism involving the whole of the FrenchChurch was unavoidable, since neither Pope nor king seemed willing togive way. But Louis XIV. had no wish to become a second Henry VIII.The threatening condition of affairs in Europe made it impossible forhim to despatch an army against Rome. At the same time the fear ofcivil disturbance in France in case he rejected completely theauthority of the Pope, and the danger that such a step might involvefor French interests abroad kept him from taking the final plunge. Herecalled the obnoxious ambassador from Rome (1689), abandoned theright of asylum as attached to the quarter of the French embassy(1690), and restored Avignon and Venaissin to the Pope. AlexanderVIII. demanded the withdrawal of the royal edict of March 1683enjoining the public acceptance of the Gallican Articles. He requiredalso a retraction from the clergy who had taken part in the Assembly,and issued a Bull denouncing the extension of the rights of the/Regalia/ and declaring the Gallican Articles null and void (1690).Louis XIV., finding that the public opinion of the Catholic world wasagainst him, and that a reconciliation with the Papacy would be veryhelpful to him in carrying out his political schemes, opened friendlynegotiations with Innocent XII. In the end an agreement was arrivedat, whereby the clerics who had taken part in the Assembly of 1682,having expressed their regret to the Pope for their action, wereappointed to the bishoprics for which they had been nominated; whilethe king informed the Pope (1693) that the decrees issued by himinsisting on the acceptance of the Gallican Articles, would not beenforced.

But in spite of this royal assurance, Gallicanism had still a stronghold upon France. The younger men in the Sorbonne could be relied uponto support the Articles, and the influence of writers like John deLaunoy (1603-1678) and of Dupin helped to spread Gallicanism among theclergy and laymen of the rising generation. Throughout the wholecontroversy Bossuet had shown himself too accommodating to the crown,though at the same time he was not unfriendly to the claims of theHoly See, nor inclined to favour such extreme measures as most of hisepiscopal colleagues. Acting on the request of the king he prepared adefence of the Gallican Articles, which was not published till longafter his death. During the eighteenth century, when the crown and theParliament of Paris interfered constantly in all religious questions,the bishops and clergy of France had good reason to regret theirdefence of the so-called Gallican Liberties. The Concordat concludedby Napoleon with Pius VII. and the action taken by the Pope with theapproval of Napoleon for the carrying out of the Concordat dealt astaggering blow to Gallicanism, despite the attempt made to revive itby the Organic Articles. The great body of the bishops of thenineteenth century had little sympathy with Gallican principles, whichdisappeared entirely after the definition of Papal Infallibility atthe Vatican Council. ----------

[1] De Mouy, /L'ambassade du duc de Crequi/, 2 vols., 1893.

(b) Febronianism and Josephism.

Febronius, /De statu ecclesiae deque legitima potestate Romani Pontificis/, etc., 1762. Idem, /Commentarius in suam retractationem/, etc., 1781. Kuentziger, /Febronius, et le Febronianisme/, 1890. Werner, /Geschichte der Katholischen Theologie in Deutschland/, 1866. /Codex iuris ecclessiastici Josephini/, etc., 1788. Gendry, /Les debuts de Josephisme/ (/Revue des Quest. hist./, 1894). /Receuil des actes concernant le voyage du Pape Pie VI. a Vienne/, 1782. Stigloher, /Die errichtung der papstlichen Nuntiatur und der Emser Kongress/, 1867. Munch, /Geschichte des Emser Kongresses/, 1840. De Potter, /Vie de Scipion de Ricci/, 1825.

The spirit of opposition to the Holy See soon spread from France tothe various states of the Holy Roman Empire. The violent onslaughts ofthe Reformers and the imminent danger of heresy had driven theCatholics of Germany to cling more closely to the Holy See, and hadhelped to extinguish the anti-Roman feeling, that had been so strongin the early years of the sixteenth century. But once the religiouswars had ended without a decisive victory for either party, and oncethe theory of imperial neutrality had been sanctioned formally by thePeace of Westphalia (1648), the Catholic rulers of Germany, notexcluding even the spiritual princes, showed more anxiety to increasetheir own power than to safeguard the interests of their religion. Theexample of the Protestant states, where the rulers were supreme inreligious as in temporal affairs, could not fail to encourage Catholicsovereigns to assert for themselves greater authority over the Churchin their own territories, in utter disregard of the rights of the Popeand of the constitution of the Church. Frequently during the reigns ofLeopold I. (1657-1705), of Joseph I. (1705-11), and of Charles VI.(1711-40) the interference of the civil power in ecclesiasticalaffairs had given just cause for complaint. But it was only during thereign of Francis I. (1745-65), and more especially of Joseph II.(1765-90), that the full results of the Jansenist, Gallican, andLiberal Catholic teaching made themselves felt in the empire as awhole, and in the various states of which the empire was composed.

The most learned exponent of Gallican views on the German side of theRhine was John Nicholas von Hontheim (1701-90), who was himself astudent of Van Espen (1646-1728), the well-known Gallican andJansenist professor of canon law in the University of Louvain. On thereturn of von Hontheim to his native city of Trier he was entrustedwith various important offices by the Prince-bishop of Trier, by whoseadvice he was appointed assistant-bishop of that See (1740). He was aman of great ability, well versed especially in ecclesiastical andlocal history, and a close student of the writings of the Gallicans(Richer, Dupin, Thomassin, and Van Espen). At the time the hope of areunion between the Lutherans and the Catholics in Germany was notabandoned completely. It seemed to von Hontheim that by lessening thepower of the Papacy, which was regarded by the Protestants as thegreatest obstacle to reconciliation, Gallicanism provided the basisfor a good reunion programme, that was likely to be acceptable tomoderate men of both parties in Germany. With the object therefore ofpromoting the cause of reunion he set himself to compose hisremarkable book, /De Statu Ecclesiae et de Legitima Potestate RomaniPontificis/, published in 1762 under the assumed name of JustinusFebronius.

According to Febronius Christ entrusted the power of the keys not tothe Pope nor to the hierarchy, but to the whole body of the faithful,who in turn handed over the duty of administration to the Pope and thehierarchy. All bishops according to him were equal, and all wereindependent of the government of their own dioceses, though at thesame time, for the purpose of preserving unity, a primacy of honourshould be accorded to the successor of Saint Peter. But this primacywas not necessarily the special prerogative of the Roman See; it couldbe separated from that Church and transferred to another diocese. Inthe early ages of Christianity the Roman bishops never claimed thepower wielded by their successors in later times. These pretensions tosupreme jurisdiction were founded upon the false decretals of Isidoreand other forgeries, and constituted a corruption that should not betolerated any longer in the Church. In reality the Pope was only thefirst among equals, empowered no doubt to carry on the administrationof the Church, but incapable of making laws or irreformable decrees onfaith or morals. He was subject to a General Council which aloneenjoyed the prerogative of infallibility. Febronius called upon thePope to abandon his untenable demands, and to be content with theposition held by his predecessors in the early centuries. If herefused to do so spontaneously he should be forced to give up hisusurpations, and if necessary the bishops should call upon the civilrulers to assist them in their struggle. As a means of restoring thePapacy to its rightful position, Febronius recommended the convocationof national synods and of a General Council, the proper instruction ofpriests and people, the judicious use of the Royal /Placet/ on papalannouncements, the enforcement of the /Appelatio ab Abusu/ againstpapal and episcopal aggression, and, as a last resort, the refusal ofobedience.

The book was in such complete accord with the absolutist tendencies ofthe age that it was received with applause by the civil rulers, and bythe court canonists, theologians, and lawyers, who saw in it therealisation of their own dreams of a state Church subservient to thecivil ruler. The book was, however, condemned by Clement XIII. (1764),who exhorted the German bishops to take vigorous measures against suchdangerous theories. Many of the bishops were indifferent; others ofthem were favourable to von Hontheim's views; but the majoritysuppressed the book in their dioceses. Several treatises werepublished in reply to Febronius, the most notable of which were thoseform the pen of Ballerini and Zaccaria. New editions of the work ofFebronius were called for, and translations of the whole or part of itappeared in German, Italian, French, Spanish, and Portuguese. It wasreceived with great favour in Austria, where the principles ofFebronius were adopted by most of the leading court canonists. At ameeting held in Coblenz (1769) the three Prince-bishops of Mainz,Trier, and Cologne presented a catalogue of complaints (/Gravamina/)against the Roman Curia, many of which were extracted from or basedupon the work of Hontheim. After repeated appeals of the Pope to thePrince-bishop of Trier to exercise his influence upon von Hontheim,the latter consented to make a retractation in 1778, but his followersalleged that the retractation having been secured by threats wasvalueless. This contention was supported by a commentary published byHontheim in explanation of his retractation, in which he showedclearly enough that he had not receded an inch from his originalposition. Before his death in 1790 he expressed regret for thedoctrine he put forward, and died in full communion with the Church.

The teaching of Febronius, paving the way as it did for the supremacyof the State in religious matters, was welcomed by the Emperor JosephII., by the Elector of Bavaria, as well as by the spiritual princes ofthe Rhine provinces. In Austria, especially, violent measures weretaken to assert the royal supremacy. Joseph II. was influenced largelyby the Gallican and liberal tendencies of his early teachers andadvisers. He dreamed of making Austria a rich, powerful, and unitedkingdom, and becoming himself its supreme and absolute ruler. Duringthe reign of his mother, Maria Theresa, he was kept in check, butafter her death in 1780, in conjunction with his prime minister,Kaunitz, he began to inaugurate his schemes of ecclesiastical reform.He insisted upon the Royal /Placet/ on all documents issued by thePope or by the bishops, forbade the bishops of his territories to holdany direct communication with Rome or to ask for a renewal of theirfaculties, which faculties he undertook to confer by his ownauthority. He forbade all his subjects to seek or accept honours fromthe Pope, insisted upon the bishops taking the oath of allegiance tohimself before their consecration, introduced a system of state-controlled education, and suppressed a number of religious houses. Inorder that the clergy might be instructed in the proper ecclesiasticalprinciples, he abolished the episcopal seminaries, and establishedcentral seminaries at Vienna, Pest, Louvain, Freiburg, and Pavia forthe education of the clergy in his dominions. Clerical students fromAustria were forbidden to frequent the /Collegium Germanicum/ at Romelest they should be brought under the influence of ultramontaneteaching. Even the smallest details of ecclesiastical worship weredetermined by royal decrees. In all these reforms Joseph II. was butreducing to practice the teaching of Febronius.

By personal letters and by communications through his nuncio Pius VI.sought to induce Joseph II. to abstain from such a policy of stateaggression; but, as all his representations were ineffective, hedetermined to undertake a journey to Vienna, in the hope that hispresence might bring about a change in the policy of the Emperor, orat least stir up the bishops to defend the interests of the Church(1782). He arrived at Vienna, had frequent interviews with the Emperorand with his minister Kaunitz, and was obliged to leave without anyother result, except that he had assured himself of the fact that,whatever about the Emperor or the bishops, the majority of the peopleof Austria were still loyal to the head of the Catholic Church. Thefollowing year (1783) Joseph II. paid a return visit to Rome, when hewas induced by the representations of the Spanish ambassador to desistfrom his plan of a complete severance of Austria from the Holy See.

Joseph II. had, however, proceeded too quickly and too violently inhis measures of reform. The people and the large body of the clergywere opposed to him as were also the Cardinal-Archbishop of Vienna,the bishops of Hungary, and the bishops of Belgium under theleadership of Cardinal Frankenberg. The state of affairs in theAustrian Netherlands became so threatening that the people rose inrevolt (1789), and Joseph II. found himself obliged to turn to thePope whom he had so maltreated and despised, in the hope that he mightinduce the Belgian Catholics to return to their allegiance. Hepromised to withdraw most of the reforms that he had introduced, buthis repentance came too late to save the Austrian rule in theNetherlands. He died in 1790 with the full consciousness of thefailure of all his schemes.

While Joseph II. was reducing Febronianism to practice in the Austrianterritories, the Prince-bishops of Mainz, Trier, and Cologne hastenedto show their anxiety for the suppression of ultramontanism in theRhinelands. The list of grievances against Rome presented to theEmperor in 1769 indicated clearly their attachment to Gallicanprinciples, and this feeling was not likely to be weakened by theerection of an apostolic nunciature at Munich in 1785. This step wastaken by the Pope at the request of Carl Theodore, Elector of Bavaria,a great part of whose territory was under the spiritual rule of theprince-bishops. The prince-bishops of the west, together with thePrince-bishop of Salzburg, all of whom were hostile already to thepapal nuncio, were greatly incensed by what they considered this newderogation of their rights, and sent representatives to a congressconvoked to meet at Ems (1786). The result of the congress was thecelebrated document known as the /Punctuation of Ems/, in which theydeclared that most of the prerogatives claimed by the Pope wereunknown in the early centuries, and were based entirely on the falsedecretals. They insisted that there should be no longer appeals toRome, that papal ordinances should be binding in any diocese onlyafter they had been accepted by the bishop of the diocese, that theoath of allegiance taken by all bishops before consecration should bechanged, that no quinquennial faculties should be sought as bishopsalready had such faculties by virtue of their office, and thatreligious orders should not be exempt from the authority of theordinaries, nor be placed under the jurisdiction of foreign superiors.The /Punctuation of Ems/ reduced the primacy of the Pope to a mereprimacy of honour, and had it been acted upon, it must have ledinevitably to national schism.

The bishops forwarded a document to Joseph II., who, while approvingof it, refused to interfere. The Elector of Bavaria opposed the actionof the bishops as did also Pacca[1] (1756-1854), the papal nuncio atCologne. The latter issued a circular to the clergy warning them thatthe dispensations granted by the prince-bishops without reference toRome were worthless. This circular gave great annoyance to the prince-bishops, particularly as they found themselves deserted by most ofthose on whose support they had relied. Even the Protestant rulerFrederick II. of Prussia took the part of Rome against thearchbishops. In face of the unfriendly attitude of the bishops andclergy nothing remained for the prince-bishops but to withdraw from anuntenable position. The Archbishop of Cologne for reasons of his ownmade his submission, and asked for a renewal of his quinquennialfaculties (1787). The Archbishop of Trier made a similar application,not indeed as Archbishop of Trier, but as Bishop of Augsburg. Buttheir submission was meant only to gain time. They sought to have thematter brought before the Diet at Regensburg in 1788, but the actionof the Elector of Bavaria produced an unfavourable verdict. Havingfailed in their design, they addressed a letter to the Pope asking himto put an end to the disedifying quarrel by withdrawing the papalnuncio from Cologne, and by sending a representative to the Diet toarrange the terms of peace. The reply of Pius VI., covering as it didthe whole ground of the controversy, contained a masterly defence ofthe papal rights and prerogatives (1789). The Archbishop of Trierpublicly withdrew his adhesion to the /Punctuation/, and advised hisGallican colleagues to do likewise, but they refused, and in theelection agreement of 1790 and 1792 they sought to pledge the emperorsto support their policy. At last the Archbishops of Cologne andSalzburg made their submission, but the Archbishop of Mainz clungobstinately to his views, until the storm of the French Revolutionbroke over his city and territory, and put an end to his rule as atemporal prince.

In Tuscany where Leopold, brother of Joseph II., reigned (1765-90), adetermined attempt was made to introduce Febronian principles asunderstood and applied in Austrian territory. Leopold was supportedstrongly in this attempt by Scipio Ricci, who, though a Jansenist atheart, had been appointed to the Bishopric of Pistoia at the requestof the Grand-Duke. The Bishop of Pistoia set himself deliberately tointroduce Jansenism and Gallicanism amongst his clergy. For thispurpose he established a seminary at Pistoia, and placed it in thehands of teachers upon whom he could rely for the carrying out of hisdesigns. In 1786 the Grand-Duke called a meeting of the bishops of theprovince, and explained to them in detail his programme ofecclesiastical reforms. With the exception of the Bishop of Pistoiaand two others they refused to co-operate with him and his designs.This plan having failed recourse was had to other measures. A synodwas summoned at Pistoia, which was presided over by Scipio Ricci, andguided in its deliberations by Tamburini the well-known Gallicanprofessor of Pavia (1786). It was attended by over two hundredpriests, some of whom belonged to the diocese, while others were totalstrangers. As might be expected the decrees of the synod were stronglyGallican and Jansenist. To ensure their introduction into the provinceof Tuscany a provincial synod of the bishops was called, but thebishops expressed their strong disapproval, and the people attackedthe palace of the bishop. He was obliged to retire from his diocese,though at the same time he remained the active adviser of Leopolduntil the death of Joseph II. led to Leopold's election to theimperial throne (1790), and put an end to the disturbances in Tuscany.Pius VI. appointed a commission to study the decrees of Pistoia, andin 1794 he issued the Bull, /Auctorem Fidei/, in which the principalerrors were condemned. The unfortunate bishop refused for years tomake his submission. It was only in 1805, on the return journey ofPius VII. from the coronation of Napoleon at Paris, that he could beinduced to make his peace with the Church.[2] ----------

[1] Pacca, /Memorie storiche della nunziatura di Colonia/.

[2] Scaduto, /Stato e chiesa sotto Leopoldo I., granduca di Toscana/, 1885. Venturi, /Il vescovo de Ricci e la Corte Romana/, 1885.

(c) Jansenism.

See bibliography, chap. vi. (c). Bartheleray, /Le cardinal de Noailles/, 1888. Doublet, /Un prelat janseniste. F. de Caulet/, 1895. Ingold, /Rome et la France. La seconde phase du jansenisme/, etc., 1901. Le Roy, /Un janseniste en exil. Correspondance de Pasquier Quesnel/, 1900. Van Vlooten, /Esquisse historique sur l'ancienne eglise catholique des Pays-Bas/, 1861. De Bellegarde, /Coup d'oeil sur l'ancienne eglise catholique de Hollande/, etc., 1896.

The Clementine Peace, obtained as it was by trickery and fraud, wasused by the Jansenists as a means of deceiving the public and ofwinning new recruits. They contended that Clement IX., regardless ofthe action of his predecessors, had accepted the Jansenist principleof respectful silence. Several who had signed the formulary ofAlexander VII. withdrew their signatures, and amongst the bishops,clergy, university graduates, and religious orders, particularlyamongst the Oratorians and Benedictines of St. Maur, the Jansenistsgained many adherents. Though outwardly peace reigned in France, yetthe Jansenist spirit made great headway, as was shown by theopposition to several popular devotions and in the spread of rigoristopinions and practices in regard to confession and communion. Thecontroversy on the Gallican Liberties complicated the issue veryconsiderably, and made it impossible for the Pope to exercise hisauthority. Even bishops like Bossuet, who were strongly opposed toJansenism, were inclined to regard papal interference with suspicion,while Louis XIV. was precluded from enforcing the decrees of the Popeas his predecessors had enforced them. The Jansenist party became muchstronger, and only a slight incident was required to precipitate a newcrisis.

This incident was supplied by the publication of the /ReflexionsMorales sur le Nouveau Testament/ by Pasquier Quesnel (1634-1719). Thewriter had been an Oratorian, but having been expelled from thatsociety in 1684 he took refuge with Antoine Arnauld in Brussels. Uponthe death of the latter in 1694, he became the recognised head orgrand-prior of the Jansenist party. An earlier edition of this workhad been published, bearing the approbation of Vialart, Bishop ofChalons, and though several additions had been made, this approbationwas printed on the new edition side by side with the approbation ofLouis Noailles, then Bishop of Chalons (1695). The following yearNoailles having become Archbishop of Paris felt called upon by his newposition to condemn a work closely akin in its ideas to thoseexpressed in the /Reflexions Morales/. He was accused of inconsistencyby the Jansenist party, one of whom published the /Problemeecclesiastique/, inquiring whether people were bound to follow theopinions of Louis Noailles, Bishop of Chalons in 1695, or of LouisNoailles, Archbishop of Paris in 1696? The controversy suddenly grewembittered. When a new edition was required in 1699, Noaillesrequested the judgment of Bossuet, who formulated certain changes thatin his opinion should be made.[1] In the end the edition was publishedwithout the suggested changes and without the approbation of thearchbishop.

While the controversy was raging round Quesnel's book, anotherincident occurred that tended to arouse all the old partisan feeling.A confessor submitted to the judgment of the Sorbonne the celebratedcase of conscience. He asked whether a priest should absolve apenitent, who rejected the teaching set forth in the five propositionsof Jansenius, but who maintained a respectful silence on the questionwhether or not they were to be found in the book /Augustinus/. In July1701 forty doctors of the Sorbonne gave an affirmative reply to thisquestion. The publication of this reply created such a storm in Francethat Clement XI. felt it necessary to condemn the decision of theSorbonne (1703). The papal condemnation was supported by Louis XIV.,as well as by the great body of the bishops. Two years later ClementXI. issued the bull /Vineam Domini/,[2] confirming the constitutionsof his predecessors, Innocent X. and Alexander VII., and condemnedonce more in an authoritative form the doctrine of respectful silence.The document was accepted by the king, by the Assembly of the Clergy,and by the majority of the bishops, though the attachment of some ofthe latter to Gallican principles led them to insist on certainconditions which the Pope could not accept. As the nuns of Port Royalstill refused to submit, their community was broken up, the sistersbeing scattered through different convents in France (1709), and thefollowing year the convent buildings were completely destroyed.

Meanwhile the controversy regarding the /Reflexions Morales/ grew morebitter. Several of the bishops condemned the book as containing muchin common with the writings of Jansenius and of his followers inFrance. Acting upon the demand of some of the bishops Clement XI.issued a brief condemning Quesnel's book (1708). The Jansenistsrefused to accept the papal decision and the Parliament of Paris, thendominated to a great extent by Jansenist influence, adopted a hostileattitude. Cardinal Noailles, considering the verdict of the Pope asmore or less a personal insult to himself, hesitated as to what coursehe should take, but at last he consented to accept the condemnationprovided the Pope issued a formal sentence. On the application ofLouis XIV. the Pope determined to put an end to all possibility ofdoubt or misunderstanding by publishing the Bull, /Unigenitus/[3](1713) in which 101 propositions taken from Quesnel's book werecondemned. As is usual in such documents the propositions werecondemned /in globo/, some as rash, some as offensive to pious ears,and some as heretical. The Bull, /Unigenitus/, was acceptedimmediately by one hundred and twelve bishops of France, by themajority of the clergy, by the Sorbonne, and by the king andParliament. The Jansenists refused to admit that it contained a finalverdict on the ground that, as it did not make clear whichpropositions were heretical and which only rash or offensive, it wasonly a disciplinary enactment and not a binding doctrinal decision.Cardinal Noailles wavered for a time, but in the end he allied himselfwith the fourteen bishops who refused to accept the Bull /Unigenitus/.Louis XIV., though opposed strongly to the Jansenists, was unwillingto allow the Pope to take serious action against the Archbishop ofParis lest the liberties of the Gallican Church should be endangered,while the Parliament of Paris sympathised openly with those whorefused to accept the papal decision.

The death of Louis XIV. (1714) and the accession of the Duke ofOrleans as regent led to a great reaction in favour of Jansenism.Cardinal Noailles was honoured by a seat in the privy council, andbecame the principal adviser of the regent in ecclesiastical affairs.The Sorbonne withdrew its submission to the Bull /Unigenitus/ (1715),and its example was followed by the Universities of Nantes and Rheims.Many of the Jansenist chapters and priests rebelled against theirbishops, and were taken under the protection of the Parliament. TheArchbishop of Paris was encouraged by addresses from his chapter andclergy to stand out firmly against the tyranny of Rome. More than oncethe Pope remonstrated with the regent, who promised much but refusedto take decisive action. The Sorbonne was punished by the Pope by thewithdrawal of its power to confer theological decrees (1716), whilemany of the bishops refused to allow their students to attend itscourses. As a last desperate expedient four of the bishops of Franceappealed solemnly to a General Council against the Bull /Unigenitus/(1717), and their example was followed by large numbers. The/Appellants/ as they were called created such a disturbance in Francethat they appeared to be much more numerous than they really were.Less than twenty of the bishops and not more than three thousandclerics, seven hundred of whom belonged to Paris, joined the party,while more than one hundred bishops and one hundred thousand clericsremained loyal to Rome. The fact, however, that Cardinal Noailles,Archbishop of Paris, placed himself at the head of the /Appellants/made the situation decidedly serious.

When private protests and remonstrances had failed Clement XI. issuedthe Bull, /Pastoralis Officii/, by which he excommunicated the/Appellants/ (1718). Undaunted by this verdict a new appeal in solemnform was lodged by Cardinal Noailles, backed by his chapter and by alarge number of the Paris clergy. Negotiations were opened up withInnocent XIII. and Benedict XIII. in the hope of inducing them towithdraw the Bull /Unigenitus/, or at least to give it a milderinterpretation, but the Popes refused to change the decisions that hadbeen given by their predecessors. The Parliament of Paris espoused thecause of the /Appellants/, and refused to allow the bishops to takeenergetic action against them, until at last the king grew alarmed atthe danger that threatened France. The energetic action taken by theprovincial council of Embrun against some of the /Appellant/ bishops(1727) received the approval of the court. In the following year(1728) Cardinal Noailles was induced to make his submission, and in ashort time the Sorbonne doctors by a majority imitated his example.Though these submissions were not without good results, yet theyserved only to embitter still more the minds of a large body of theJansenist party, and to strengthen them in their opposition to theBull, /Unigenitus/.

The Jansenists having failed to secure the approval of Pope or kingfor their heretical teaching appealed to the visible judgment of God.The deacon, Francis of Paris,[4] who was one of the leaders of thesect, and whose sanctity was vouched for, according to his friends, bythe fact that he had abstained from receiving Holy Communion for twoyears, died in 1727, and was buried in the cemetery of Saint Medard.Crowds flocked to pray at his tomb, and it was alleged that wonderfulcures were being wrought by his intercession. One of the earliest andmost striking of these miracles was investigated by the Archbishop ofParis and was proved to be without foundation, but others still moreremarkable were broadcast by the party, with the result that hosts ofinvalids were brought from all parts of France in the hope ofprocuring recovery. Many, especially women, went into ecstasies andviolent convulsions round the tomb, and while in this state theydenounced the Pope, the bishops, and in a word all the adversaries ofJansenism. Owing to the unseemly and at times indecent scenes thattook place the cemetery was closed by the civil authorities (1732),but the /Convulsionnaires/, as they were called, claimed that similarmiracles were wrought in private houses, in which they assembled topray, and to which clay taken from the tomb of the Deacon of Paris hadbeen brought. The great body of the people ridiculed the extravagancesof the sect, and many of the moderate Jansenists condemned the/Convulsionnaires/ in unsparing terms. Instead of doing Jansenism anygood these so-called miracles, utterly unworthy as they were of divinewisdom and holiness, served only to injure its cause, and indeed toinjure the Christian religion generally, by placing a good weapon inthe hands of its rationalist adversaries.

But even though heaven had not declared in favour of the Janseniststhe Parliament of Paris determined to protect them. It defendedbishops who refused to accept the Bull /Unigenitus/ against the Pope,tried to prevent the orthodox bishops from suspending appellantpriests, and forbade the exclusion of appellant laymen from thesacraments. The Parliament of Paris condemned the action of the clergyin refusing the last sacraments to the dying unless they could provethey had made their confession to an approved priest. Though the privycouncil annulled this condemnation Parliament stood by its decision,and challenged the authority of the Archbishop of Paris by punishingpriests who refused the sacraments (1749-52). The bishops appealed tothe king to defend the liberty of the Church, but the Parliamentasserted its jurisdiction by depriving the Archbishop of Paris of histemporalities and by endeavouring to have him cited before the civilcourts. Louis XIV. annulled the sentence of the Parliament, andbanished some of the more violent of its members from the capital(1753). They were, however, soon recalled, and a royal mandate wasissued enforcing silence on both parties. For infringing this order deBeaumont, Archbishop of Paris, was banished from his See, and severalother bishops and priests were summoned before the legal tribunals.

The Assembly of the Clergy in 1755 petitioned the king to give morefreedom to the Church, and to restore the exiled Archbishop of Paristo his See. A commission was established to examine the whole questionof the refusal of the sacraments, and as the Commission could notarrive at any decision, the case was submitted to Benedict XIV., whodecided that those who were public and notorious opponents of theBull, /Unigenitus/, should be treated as public sinners and should beexcluded from the sacraments (1756). The Parliament of Paris and someof the provincial parliaments forbade the publication of the papaldecision, but a royal order was issued commanding the universalacceptance of the Bull, /Unigenitus/, even though it might not beregarded as an irreformable rule of faith. According to this mandatethe regulation for allowing or refusing the administrations of thesacraments was a matter to be determined by the bishops, though anyperson who considered himself aggrieved by their action might appealagainst the abuse of ecclesiastical power. This decree was registeredby the Parliament (1757), whereupon the Archbishop of Paris wasallowed to return. From that time Jansenism declined rapidly inFrance, but the followers of the sect united with the Gallicans of theParliament to enslave the Church, and with the Rationalists to procurethe suppression of the Jesuits, whom they regarded as their mostpowerful opponents.

Many of the Jansenists fled to Holland, where the Gallicans were onlytoo willing to welcome such rebels against Rome. The old Catholichierarchy in Holland had been overthrown, and the Pope was obliged toappoint vicars apostolic to attend to the wants of the scatteredCatholic communities. One of these appointed in 1688 was an Oratorian,and as such very partial to Quesnel and the Jansenists. Owing to hispublic alliance with the sect he was suspended from office in 1702 anddeposed in 1704, but not before he had given Jansenism a great impetusin Holland. About seventy parishes and about eighty priests refused torecognise his successor, and went over to the Jansenist party. In 1723a body of priests calling themselves the Chapter of Utrecht electedSteenhoven as Archbishop of Utrecht, and a suspended bishop namedVarlet, belonging formerly to the Society for Foreign Missions,consecrated him against the protests of the Pope. Supported by theCalvinist government the new archbishop maintained himself at Utrechttill his death, when he was succeeded by others holding similar views.Later on the Bishoprics of Haarlem (1742) and of Deventer wereestablished as suffragan Sees to Utrecht. The Catholics of Hollandrefused to recognise these bishoprics as did also the Pope, whose onlyreply to their overtures was a sentence of excommunication andinterdict. The Jansenist body of Holland, numbering at present aboutsix thousand, have maintained their separate ecclesiasticalorganisation until the present day. They resisted the establishment ofthe hierarchy in Holland (1853), opposed the definition of PapalInfallibility, and allied themselves definitely with the old Catholicmovement in Germany. ----------

[1] Ingold, /Bossuet et la jansenisme/, 1904.

[2] Denzinger, 11th edition, n. 1350.

[3] Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1351-1451.

[4] Matthieu, /Histoire des miracles et des convulsionnaires de St. Medard/, 1864.

(d) Quietism.

Molinos, /Guida spirituale/, 1681. /Oeuvres spirituelles de Madame Guyon/, 42 vols., 1713. Guerrier, /Madame Guyon/, 1881. Fenelon, /Explication des maximes des Saints sur la vie interieure/, 1697. Bossuet, /Sur les etats d'oraison/, 1696. Crousle, /Fenelon et Bossuet/, 1896. Delmont, /Fenelon et Bossuet d'apres les derniers travaux de la critique/, 1896.

Mysticism as implying the substantive union of the soul with God wasthe distinguishing feature of the pantheistic religious creeds ofIndia, as it was also of some of the Greek philosophical systems. Inthe Middle Ages, while many of the ablest exponents of Scholasticismwere also distinguished mystics, yet more than once Mysticism or thetheology of the heart, unrestrained by the guiding influence of thetheology of the intellect, fell into grievous errors akin to thePantheism of the Buddhists and the Stoics. Many of these Middle Agemystics maintained that perfection consisted in the union of the soulwith God by quiet contemplation, so that those who reached that statehad no need of external aids to sanctity, such as good works, thesacraments, or prayer; that they were under no obligation to obey anylaw, ecclesiastical or divine, since their will was united to God'swill; and that they need make no effort to resist carnal thoughts ordesires, as these came from the devil and could not possibly stain thesoul. Such, however, was not the teaching of the great Spanishauthorities on mystical theology, Saint Teresa, Saint John of theCross, and Louis of Granada, whose works on spiritual perfection andon the ways that lead to it have never been surpassed. But side byside with this school of thought, another and less orthodox form ofmysticism manifested itself in Spain. Many of the sectaries, such asthe Alumbrados or Illuminati, carried away by pantheistic principles,fell into error, and put forward under the guise of mystical theologynot a few of the extravagances that had been condemned by the Councilof Vienne (1311) and by the judgment of the universal Church.

Closely akin to the errors of this Spanish school was the doctrineknown as Quietism taught by Michael de Molinos (1640-96), a Spanishpriest, who having completed his studies at Valencia took up hisresidence in Rome. He published a work entitled /Guida Spirituale/ in1675, the ascetical principles of which attracted so much attentionthat translations of the book appeared almost immediately in nearlyevery country of Europe. The teaching of Molinos was denounced to theInquisition by the Jesuits and the Dominicans, and in 1687 InnocentXI. issued the Bull /Coelestis Pastor/,[1] in which he condemnedsixty-eight propositions put forward by Molinos. The author havingbeen arrested was obliged to make a public recantation, and remained aprisoner until his death (1696).

According to Molinos perfection consists in a state of self-annihilation in which the soul remains entirely passive, absorbedcompletely in the contemplation and love of God. By means of thispassivity or complete surrender of the human faculties to God the soulof man is transformed, and is in a sense deified. While in thiscondition there is no need to act or to desire to act, to think ofrewards or punishments, of defects or virtues, of sanctification,penance, or good works, nor is there any necessity to resist carnalthoughts or motions since these are the works of the devil. Such asystem, founded nominally on the pure love of God, and leading ofnecessity to the overthrow of law, morality, and religious authority,found great favour in Italy and Spain, where it required all theenergies and powers of the Inquisition to secure its suppression. Itwas backed by the Oratorian, Petrucci, afterwards created a cardinal(1686), whose books on the spiritual life were attacked by the Jesuit,Paul Segneri, and condemned by the Inquisition.

Quietism found favour in France through the writings and teachings ofFrancis Malaval of Marseilles and of the Barnabite Pere Lacombe. Theindividual whose name is most closely identified with Quietism inFrance is, however, Madame Jeanne de la Mothe Guyon, a young widow whoon the death of her husband gave herself up to the practice of prayerand to the study of the principles of the spiritual life. Admitting asshe did the fundamental doctrine of the system of Molinos, namely,that perfection consists in a state of self-abnegation in which thesoul is wrapped up completely in pure love of God, she rejected mostof the absurd and immoral conclusions that seemed to follow from it.According to her, and more especially according to her principaldefender, Fenelon, pure love of God without any thought of self-interest or of reward or punishment, constitutes the essence of thespiritual life, and must be the principle and motive of all deliberateand meritorious acts. This teaching constitutes what is known as Semi-Quietism. Madame Guyon published several works and gave manyconferences in various cities of France. The close connexion betweenher teaching and the mysticism of Molinos attracted the unfriendlynotice of the French authorities, particularly as Louis XIV. was astrong opponent of Quietism. As a result Madame Guyon and herspiritual director, Pere Lacombe, were arrested in Paris (1688), butowing to the interference of Madame de Maintenon, Madame Guyon wasreleased.

Fenelon, then a priest and tutor to the Duke of Burgundy, grandson ofLouis XIV. and prospective heir to the throne of France, was deeplyinterested in the teaching of Madame Guyon whose acquaintance he hadmade in Paris. Fenelon, while rejecting the false mysticism of deMolinos, agreed with Madame Guyon in believing that the state ofperfection in this life is that in which all righteous acts proceedfrom pure love without any hope of reward or fear of punishment, andthat all virtuous acts to be meritorious must proceed directly orindirectly from charity. This teaching found a strenuous opponent inBossuet, Bishop of Meaux. A commission consisting of Bossuet, deNoailles, then Bishop of Chalons, and Tronson, superior of theSulpicians, was appointed to examine the whole question (1695). Alittle later Fenelon, who had just been promoted to the Archbishopricof Cambrai, was added to the list. The conference met in the Sulpicianseminary at Issy, and as a result thirty-four articles were drawn up,all of which were accepted by Madame Guyon and Pere Lacombe. Theformer having returned to Paris was arrested, and forced to signanother recantation of her theories and to promise that she wouldnever again attempt to spread them. From that time till her death in1717 she took no further part in the discussions.

But the controversy regarding Semi-Quietism was to be carried onbetween the two greatest churchmen and literary giants of their age,namely, Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, and Fenelon, Archbishop of Cambrai.Bossuet, not content with the partial victory that he had secured atthe Issy conference, determined to expose the dangerous tendencies ofMadame Guyon's teaching by a short statement of the Catholic doctrineon perfection and the spiritual life. This he did in his book/Instructions sur les etats d'oraison/, which he submitted to Fenelonin the hope of obtaining his approval. This Fenelon refused to give,partly because he thought Madame Guyon had been punished severelyenough and should not be attacked once she had made her submission,and partly also because he believed the views of Bossuet on charityand self-interest were unsound. Before Bossuet's book could bepublished Fenelon anticipated him in a work entitled /Explication desmaximes des Saints sur la vie interieure/, in which he defended manyof Madame Guyon's views. This book was submitted to the Archbishop ofParis, to Tronson, and to some of the theologians of the Sorbonne,from all of whom it received the highest commendations.

The Bishop of Meaux, annoyed at the action of Fenelon, denounced thebook to Louis XIV., who appointed a commission to examine it (1697).Fenelon, fearing that a commission, one of the members of which washis rival Bossuet, would not be likely to give an impartial judgment,forwarded his book to Rome for judgment. While the Roman authoritieswere at work a violent controversy was carried on between Fenelon andBossuet, which, however much it may have added to the literaryreputation of the combatants, was neither edifying nor instructive. Onthe side of Bossuet especially it is clear that personalities played amuch greater part than zeal for orthodoxy. In Rome opinion was verymuch divided about the orthodoxy of Fenelon's work. Louis XIV. left nostone unturned to secure its condemnation. In the end Innocent XII.condemned twenty propositions taken from the book (1699).[2] Thissentence was handed to Fenelon just as he was about to mount thepulpit in his own cathedral on the Feast of the Annunciation. Aftermastering its contents he preached on the submission that was due tosuperiors, read the condemnation for the people, and announced to themthat he submitted completely to the decision of the Pope, and besoughthis friends earnestly neither to read his book nor to defend the viewsthat it contained. ----------

[1] Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1221-88.

[2] In the Brief, /Cum alias/, Denzinger, op. cit., nos. 1327-49.