M. Gérin quotes from a manuscript in the Imperial Library some lines of Arnauld's, which he supposes to have referred to Bossuet, in which he quotes the saying of S. Augustine about the hireling shepherd, who flies when the flock is in danger from the wolf, fugisti quia tacuisti. "The prelates were assembled, and none of them opened his mouth to undeceive the king" as to the severities which were going on at Pamiers. In another letter Arnauld says

The king would have done himself more honour if he had named M. Bossuet to the cardinalate. And yet there is a verumtamen, as to which I fear he will have to give much account to God, and that is, that he had not the courage to represent anything to the king. This is the temper of the times, even in those who in other respects have very great qualitiesabundance of light but little nobleness. Of the same bishop M. de Treville said, "he had no bone."

Before, therefore, the great name of Bossuet can really be urged in favour of the Assembly of 1682 and its proceedings, we must at least ask whether or not he took it as an opportunity of expressing what he really felt, or whether he was reluctantly following the wishes of the Court. And this point he answers for himself. Ledieu records that he

asked Bossuet who had inspired him with the plan of the propositions of the clergy upon the power of the Church. He replied that M. Colbert, then Minister and Secretary of State, was the real author of them, and the only person who determined the king in the matter. M. Colbert maintained that the quarrel with Rome about the Regale was the best opportunity for renewing the doctrine of France on the use of the power of the Popes. . . He brought the king over to his opinion against the advice of M. de Tellier, also Minister and Secretary of State. . . . . Besides, M. de Paris (Harlay de Champvallon), did nothing else in the matter than flatter the Court, catch up the words of the Ministers, and blindly follow their will like a valet (p. 385).

This is by no means the language of a man who felt that the Assembly had given him an opportunity of bearing testimony to a truth for which he cared. It appears, indeed, that he was so far from feeling this, that he himself persuaded De Tellier and his son (Archbishop of Rheims) from doing what was afterwards done, and told them "you will have the glory of having brought to a conclusion the affair of the Regale, but that glory will be dimmed by these odious propositions." "Even when the king, pressed by Colbert, La Chaise, and Harlay, had given his express orders, Bossuet still proposed that an investigation of the tradition on the subject should be made, which was nothing more than a pretext for an endless discussion "-in fact, much like what leads, among our

selves, to the appointment of a "committee" of inquiry, on many subjects upon which honourable members do not wish to come to a

vote.

Those contemporaries who disliked what was done did not impute it to Bossuet. Fénelon "wrote in his celebrated letter to Lewis XIV. Your Archbishop and your Confessor involved you in the difficulties of the affair of the Regale, and in the troubles with Rome'" (p. 287).

The whole of M. Gérin's chapter on "Bossuet and the Assembly of 1682" is well worth study. He clearly shows that whenever Bossuet ventured to express his real feelings and opinions, he spoke against the side of which he is generally supposed to have been the soul. He afterwards made an apology himself that Protestant kings might be more willing to become Catholics if they saw the power of the Pope limited. But M. Gérin shows that the Protestant Leibnitz took the side of the Pope, and that the strong Gallicans, so far from attracting Protestants, put difficulties in the way of reunion.

The flattery of Lewis XIV., by the Assembly, was, we presume, too gross for Bossuet's taste, but it passed without protest from him:

The deputies of the clergy re-echoed what the contemporary legists were writing; "in France it has always been held that kings are not purely laymen, but in a sort of mixed condition." From the first day to the last they vied with each other to paraphrase the language of the "Promoteur" Chéron, in the sitting of November 24, who having said that Lewis XIV. surpassed David in sweetness, Solomon in wisdom, Alexander in valour, in power all the Cæsars and all the kings of the earth, applied to him this Byzantine text "In the army more than king, in the field more than soldier, in the kingdom more than emperor, in civil justice more than prætor, in consistory more than judge, in the Church more than bishop" (from the procès verbal of the Assembly). The Pope in his brief of April 11 reproves this base flattery, and asks, "Which of you came into the arena to stand as a bulwark for the House of Israel? Who dared to expose himself to ill-will? Who uttered so much as one voice in memory of the ancient liberty?"

:

It is sad to write that Bossuet, who when speaking freely condemned the Archbishop of Paris as making himself "the valet" of the ministers, was the man who moved that he should be President of the Assembly. This was the same upon whose death Madame de Coulanges wrote to Madame de Sévigné that there were only two trifling difficulties in the way of the person who was to be selected to preach his funeral oration, one was "his life," the other "his death."

It is at least pleasing to see that Bossuet was aware of this great infirmity, and asked the superior of a convent to pray for him, "that I may not have complacence for the world" (p. 305).

We must not infer that the "declaration" expressed Bossuet's real feelings because it was by him that it was drawn up. It is proved that he took this upon himself only to prevent its sense being expressed with much greater violence by men who knew much less than he what they were doing. It is recorded by Fleury that the Bishop of Tournai had drawn it up "very ill."

His propositions maintained that the Holy See as well as the Pope could fall into heresy, and thus overthrew the indefectibility of the Holy See. M. Bossuet, shocked at this doctrine, strongly opposed it. The Bishop of Tournai warmly defended it. . . . . The dispute lasted long. It finished by M. de Tournai refusing to draw up the articles, and on his refusal M. Bossuet was charged with it. This anecdote is attested and given in detail by M. de Fénelon, in a Latin treatise upon the infallibility of the Pope, still in manuscript. He received it from the mouth of M. Bossuet (p. 295).

Bossuet, long afterwards, declared that he undertook the office only to serve Rome by "preventing things from being pushed to a dangerous extreme.'

There is no doubt that this really was his object, and that he managed it with great skill. His conduct was that of a man who was bent upon satisfying an imperious monarch, and exercising all his ingenuity to do so at the least possible sacrifice of principle. And this intention is evident on the face of the "declaration." The articles are full of ambiguities. They were evidently intended to look violent enough to satisfy the Court and yet to be capable of an innocent interpretation. But Bossuet ought to have remembered that his words were sure to be interpreted, not merely by theologians in the schools, but by kings, and the ministers of kings intent upon depriving the Church of her most necessary liberties, and anxious to oppress her under the specious cloak of his authority. The disgrace of having his great name perpetually invoked by Napoleon I. when perpetrating his worst outrages (outrages which Bossuet would have rejected with indignation) was but too just a retribution.

M. Gérin sums up his character

Happily Bossuet united to this infirmity of charater, besides the genius which shines forth in his "Funeral Orations," in his "Discourse on Universal History," in the "Variations," a gift more admirable and more precious still-the deep piety which breathes in his "Sermons," in "Letters to La Sœur Cornuau," and in the "Meditations upon the Gospel." But whatever homage is his due, an upright judge will ever repeat with Arnauld, "There is nevertheless a VERUMTAMEN, for which I fear that he had to render a great account to God" (page 331).

It is the fashion to say that the "declaration" was unopposed

in France.

There would have been small cause for wonder if it had. It was voted by the Assembly, March 19th, 1682, and on March 20th a decree was issued by the king, commanding that the four articles of the declaration should be registered by every university of his kingdom, and taught by all their Professors. No man could have been surprised if such a decree from such a master had been immediately and universally obeyed. The fact, however, was far otherwise. A general opposition arose, and was only put down by sheer force. Upon this subject we would refer our readers to the very interesting chapter in M. Gérin's book entitled "Opposition to the Four Articles." It was most energetic immediately under the eye of the king and his ministers in Paris itself and in the Sorbonne. M. Gérin quotes Le Gendre, "an unsuspected witness," to prove that the opposition was almost general, and that de Harlay was specially attacked as the supposed author of the declaration. He adds, "the common and convenient assertion that it was generally received will have to be given up, and it must be admitted that the doctors opposed to the Gallican maxims were the most pious, the most learned, and the most numerous." "The Gallican Fleury says they included

Almost all the regular clergy, not only the religious orders but also the communities of priests, although without privileges and subject to the bishops. They leant to that side as most favourable to piety. The Regulars, almost the only persons who preserve the tradition of the practices of devotion, have united their opinion to this, and have promoted it by their writings, their conversation, and in the direction of consciences. The ancient [i.e. the Gallican] doctrine has remained among the doctors often less pious and less exemplary in their lives than those who teach the other. Sometimes those who have resisted the novelties (i. e., the doctrine opposed to Gallicanism) have been lawyers and politicians, profane and libertine, by whom the truths they teach have been exaggerated and made odious (page 340).

This is confirmed by the secret reports sent to Colbert. His agents gave him lists of theologians for Rome and against Rome. These lists were drawn up by declared Gallicans, and therefore the praises they give to the characters of those whom they class as "for Rome are the less to be suspected. M. Gérin goes in detail through the different colleges of theology. We have not space to follow him at length. But he much more than makes good his assertion. The Sorbonne had 169 doctors, of whom "all but six or seven" were opposed to the declaration; at the college of Navarre all but one; at St. Sulpice and the Missions Etrangères "all but four or five;" among the orders all, As to learning and piety, he shows that the superiority of those opposed to the declaration was strongly and unanimously testified by Colbert's reports.

On the 1st of May, 1682, a deputation of the Parliament was

sent to the Sorbonne, where the "Faculty" had its meetings, to require the registration of the "declaration." So much opposition did this meet that it was not registered until after a long struggle. The feeling in the "Faculty" was so strong that the ProcureurGeneral de Harlay reported to Colbert, June 15th, that the debate in the Faculty was adjourned till the next day, and that he judged it necessary to prevent the conclusion of this deliberation "by whatever means the king judged would be least mischievous," concluding by saying that he himself "was neither wise enough nor indiscreet enough to propose any means to be adopted, but awaited the king's commands. So great was the alarm produced at court

by this report, that

The king sent the Marquis de "Seignelay (Colbert's son) to Paris the same night, to arrange with the archbishop and the heads of the Parliament a coup d'état on a small scale, to be put in execution the next day." So early was the Parliament acting, that at six o'clock the next morning, June 16, an usher arrived from it, signifying to the dean of the faculty a decree already passed by the Parliament the same morning, which declared that as the doctors had presumed to debate upon the articles instead of registering the decree, their further meetings were absolutely forbidden, and the dean and six professors of the Sorbonne, the grand master, and four professors of the college of Navarre, and all others who should be indicated by the Procureur-Général, were required to attend at the bar of the Parliament at seven the same morning (page 357).

The declaration was then registered by force, the books having been sent for to the Parliament, and all future meetings of the faculty were forbidden. Eight doctors of theology were immediately sent into exile, by "lettres de cachet."

But violence of this kind was very reluctantly adopted by the Court because it was plain that if reported it would make known to all the world, and especially at Rome, that the "declaration had been imposed upon the French clergy only by force.

It was just at this moment that the king suddenly dissolved the assembly in a manner which his creatures in it felt to be cruelly contemptuous. The Archbishop of Paris went so far as to remonstrate with Colbert, requesting that the letter dissolving it might be couched in more respectful language, and he received a very curt reply from the minister. The professed reason for this sudden step which M. Gérin finds in the memoirs of de Cosnac (a member of the assembly) was, that it was necessary that the bishops should return to their dioceses. The real reason, that matters were arranging themselves at Rome, and as the assembly had been from the beginning merely a weapon in the hands of the king to attack the Pope, it was contemptuously thrown away when no longer needed. The opposition of the clergy of Paris to the declaration no doubt