THE MISTRESS OF A POOR MAN'S HOUSEHOLD.
After a fortnight spent very happily in Maine, Dr. and Mrs. James
came back to New York, bringing with them the doctor's youngest
sister, Lucy, to make a long visit. Martha Burney had been left in
charge of the house, and had received a warm invitation to consider
it her home; but she only replied that she would think about it.
On arriving at home, (for it was decided to begin their married life
in the house that Margaret had already bought and furnished,) and
asking eagerly for her friend, Margaret was informed that Miss Burney
had gone away that day, and left a note to explain. It was as follows:
"MY DEAREST MARGARET: Do not think, by my leaving your house, that
I do not appreciate the hospitality that you and your husband have
offered me, or that I am ungrateful for it. But I could never
consent to live upon you always; and I thought it better, while I
am strong and healthy, to enter on the life in which I should be
glad to be found at death. I have consulted with M. Saincère, and
he encourages me to hope that my vocation may be a religious one;
and the sympathy and affection I feel for the Sisters of Charity,
which I believe you share with me, leads me to seek my home and
work among them, at the house we visited together on the Hudson
River. There I shall remain for the present as a boarder, till I
am quite sure what is God's will for me; but I may tell you, in
confidence, that I have in mind the work of teaching the poor and
abandoned little ones of this great city.
"I cannot express the joy which comes to my heart when I think
that my life, which since my father's death has seemed to me
aimless and unprofitable, may be devoted in the humblest way to
the service of God and his holy church. Rejoice with me, my dear
friend, in the midst of your own great happiness. God grant that
we may both be worthy of the favors he has bestowed on us! I pray
him to grant his blessing to you and yours.
"With love and congratulations to you and your husband; I remain,
in the heart of Jesus, your faithful friend,
"MARTHA BURNEY.
"NEW YORK, Sept. 1."
That evening, when Lucy, tired with her long journey, had gone
up-stairs, Margaret and Dr. James sat together in the parlor talking.
The windows were open, and there was a refreshing breeze; the
moonlight lay brightly on the floor, but except that, the room was
dark.
"I tremble sometimes," said Dr. James, "when I think of the broad
path of sunshine in which I am walking, and see that every wish
is fulfilled. I have left Shellbeach with none but friends behind
me; I have health and strength; money enough for necessaries,
superfluities, and charities; the noblest and handsomest wife in the
world; the best and only religion to love and serve with her; the
angels and saints for friends and comrades; a living God to worship,
and the hope of heaven hereafter. But O Margaret! the words of St.
Paul are very often with me now, 'But God forbid that I should glory,
save in the cross of our Lord Jesus Christ.' We have not much to make
us remember the cross now; but let us try, at least, to be ready for
it when it comes to us."
"We will not forget it. I will write those words this night in the
prayer-book Father Barry gave me for my wedding present."
And when they said their prayers, Margaret opened the blank page at
the beginning of the book, and, showing it to her husband, pointed to
this inscription, written by Father Barry, "The Lord is merciful to
those whom he foreknoweth shall be his by faith and good works;" and
below she had herself added these words,
"But God forbid that I should glory, save in the cross of our Lord
Jesus Christ."
THE EARLY HISTORY OF THE CATHOLIC CHURCH ON THE ISLAND OF NEW-YORK.
THE REPUBLIC.
The history of Catholicity in colonial days, with its romance, its
terrors, and the last impotent struggles of fanatical opposition
have, we trust, not been without interest. The peace opened New-York
to Catholic immigration, and the influence of the French officers, of
both army and navy, had done much to dispel prejudice. The church to
which Rochambeau, La Fayette, De Kalb, Pulaski, De Grasse, Vandreuil
belonged was socially and politically respectable--nay, it was not
antagonistic to American freedom.
The founder of the Catholic congregation had looked anxiously forward
to this moment.
The venerable Father Farmer came on to resume his labors, and gather
such Catholics as the seven years' war had left or gathered. His
visits and pastoral care, then resumed, were continued till the
arrival of the Rev. Charles Whelan, an Irish Franciscan, who had been
chaplain on one of the vessels belonging to the fleet of the Count
de Grasse. He was the first regularly settled priest in the city of
New York. Catholicity thus had a priest, but as yet no church. Mass
was said near Mr. Stoughton's house, on Water street; in the house
of Don Diego de Gardoqui, the Spanish ambassador; in a building
in Vauxhall Garden, between Chambers and Warren streets; and in a
loft over a carpenter shop on Barclay street. An Italian nobleman,
Count Castiglioni, mentions his attending mass in a room any thing
but becoming so solemn an act of religious worship. The use of a
court-room in the Exchange was solicited from the city authorities,
but refused. Then the little band of Catholics took heart and
resolved to rear an edifice that would lift its cross-crowned spire
in the land. It is a sign of the good feeling that had to some extent
obtained, that Trinity church sold the Catholic body the five lots of
ground they desired for the erection of their church. Here, at the
corner of Barclay and Church streets, the corner-stone of St. Peter's
church was laid November 4th, 1786, by Don Diego de Gardoqui, as
representative of Charles III., King of Spain, whose aid to the work
entitles him to be regarded as its chief benefactor.
This pioneer Catholic church was a modest structure forty-eight
feet in front by eighty-one in depth. Its progress was slow; and
divine worship was performed in it for some years before the vestry,
portico, pews, gallery, and steeple were at last completed in 1792.
The congregation, living so long amid a Protestant population whose
system Halleck describes so truly,
"They reverence their priest; but disagreeing
In price or creed, dismiss him without fear,"
had adopted some of their ideas, and forgetting that the mass was a
sacrifice, and the peculiar and only worship of God, thought that an
eloquent sermon was every thing. A vehement and impassioned preacher
it was their great ambition to secure, and as the trustees controlled
matters almost absolutely, the earlier priests had to endure much
humiliation and actual suffering.
The reader will find this period of struggle well described in Bishop
Bayley's pages, with the culmination of the evils of trusteeism in
the bankruptcy of St. Peter's.
A pastor was at last found who filled the difficult position. This
was the Rev. William O'Brien, assisted after a time by Doctor
Matthew O'Brien, whose reputation as a preacher was such that a
volume of his sermons had been printed in Ireland. Under their care
the difficulties began to diminish; the congregation took a regular
form, and the young were trained to their Christian duties; and the
devotion of the Catholic clergy during the visits of that dreadful
scourge, the yellow fever, gave them an additional claim to the
reverence and respect of their flock.
Beside the church soon sprang up the school. The Catholics of New
York signalized the opening of the nineteenth century by establishing
a free school at St. Peter's, which before many years could report an
average attendance of five hundred pupils.
This progress of Catholicity naturally aroused some of the old
bitterness of prejudice.
The sermons of the Protestant pulpits at this period exulting over
the captivity and death of Pius VI. produced their natural result
in awakening the evil passions of the low and ignorant. The old
prejudices revived against Catholics with all their wonted hostility.
The first anti-Catholic riot occurred in 1806, as a result. On
Christmas eve, some ruffians attempted to force their way into St.
Peter's church during the midnight mass, in order to see the Infant
rocked in the cradle which they were taught to believe Catholics then
worshipped. The _Brief Sketch_ details the unfortunate event from the
papers of the day.
From that time anti-Catholic excitements have been pretty regular in
their appearance; for a time, indeed, eleven years was as sure to
bring one, under some new name, as fourteen years did the pestilent
locusts. Yet mob violence has been less frequently and less terribly
shown in New York than in some other cities with higher claims to
order and dignity.
Once we remember how a mob, flushed with the sacking of a Protestant
church where a negro and a white had been married, resolved to close
their useful labors by demolishing St. Patrick's cathedral. They
marched valorously almost to the junction of the Bowery and Prince
street, but halted on the suggestion of a tradesman there, that a
reconnoissance would be a wise movement. A few were detached to
examine the road. The look up Prince street was not encouraging. The
paving-stones had actually been carried up in baskets to the upper
stories of the houses, ready to hurl on the assailants; and the wall
around the churchyard was pierced for musketry. The mob retreated
with creditable celerity; but all that night a feverish anxiety
prevailed around St. Patrick's cathedral; men stood ready to meet any
new advance, and the mayor, suddenly riding up, was in some danger,
but was fortunately recognized.
What might have been the scenes in New York in 1844, when murder ran
riot in Philadelphia! The Natives had just elected a mayor; the city
would in a few days be in their hands; a public meeting was called
in the park, and all seemed to promise a repetition of the scenes
in the sister city. A bold, stern extra issued from the office of
_The Freeman's Journal_ that actually sent terror into the hearts of
the would-be rioters. It was known at once that the Catholics would
defend their churches to the last gasp. The firm character of the
archbishop was well known, and with that to animate the people the
struggle would not be a trifling one.
The call for the meeting was countermanded and New York was saved;
few knew from what.
To return to the earlier days of the century. If attacks were made,
inquiry was stimulated. Conversions to the truth were neither few
nor unimportant. Bishop Bayley mentions briefly the reception into
the church of one nearly related to himself, Mrs. Eliza Ann Seton,
daughter of the celebrated Doctor Bayley, and widow of William Seton,
a distinguished New York merchant. Born on Staten Island, and long
resident in New York, gracing a high social position by her charming
and noble character, she made her first communion in St. Peter's
church on the 25th of March, 1805, and in a few years, giving herself
wholly to God, became, under him, the foundress in the United States
of the Sisters of Charity, whose quiet labors of love, and charity,
and devotedness in the cause of humanity and education in every city
in the land seek no herald here below, but are written deep in the
hearts of grateful millions.
Several Protestant clergymen in those days returned to the bosom
of unity, such as the Rev. Mr. Kewley, of St. George's church, New
York; Rev. Calvin White, ancestor of the Shakespeare scholar, Richard
Grant White; and Mr. Ironsides. Strange, too, was the conversion of
the Rev. Mr. Richards, sent from New York as a Methodist preacher to
Western New York and Canada. We follow him, by his diary, through the
sparse settlements which then dotted that region, whence he extended
his labors to Montreal. There, good man, in the zeal of his heart he
thought to conquer Canadian Catholicity by storming the Sulpitian
seminary at Montreal, converting all there, and so triumphantly
closing the campaign. His diary of travel goes no further. Mr.
Richards died a few years since, a zealous and devoted Sulpitian
priest of the seminary at Montreal.
New York was too far from Baltimore to be easily superintended by the
bishop of that see. His vast diocese was now to be divided, and this
city was erected into an episcopal see in 1808, by Pope Pius VII. The
choice for the bishop who was to give form to the new diocese, fell
upon the Rev. Luke Concanen, a learned and zealous Dominican, long
connected with the affairs of his order at Rome. Bishop Bayley gives
a characteristic letter of his. He had persistently declined a see
in Ireland with its comparative comforts and consolations among a
zealous people; but the call to a position of toil, the establishment
of a new diocese in a new land, where all was to be created, was
not an appeal that he could disregard. He submitted to the charge
imposed upon him, and after receiving episcopal consecration at
Rome, prepared to reach his see, wholly ignorant of what he should
find on his arrival in New York. It was, however, no easy matter then
to secure passage. Failing to find a ship at Leghorn, he proceeded
to Naples; but the French, who had overrun Italy, detained him as a
British subject, and while thus thwarted and harassed, he suddenly
fell sick and died. Thus New York never beheld its first bishop.
Then followed a long vacancy, highly prejudicial to the progress of
the church, but a vacancy that European affairs caused. The successor
of St. Peter was torn from Rome, and held a prisoner in France. The
Catholic world knew not under what influence acts might be issued as
his, that were really the inventions of his enemies. The bishops in
Ireland addressed a letter to the bishops of the United States to
propose some settled line of action in all cases where there was not
evidence that the pope was a free agent. The reply of the bishops in
the United States is given in the volume before us.
Meanwhile, the Archbishop of Baltimore extended his care to the
diocese of New York. When Father O'Brien at last sank under his
increasing years, New York would have seen its Catholic population in
a manner destitute, had not the Jesuit fathers of Maryland come to
their assistance. Rev. Anthony Kohlmann, a man of sound theological
learning and great zeal, who died many years after at Rome, honored
by the sovereign pontiffs, was the administrator of the diocese.
With him were Rev. Benedict Fenwick, subsequently Bishop of Boston,
and Rev. Peter Malou, whose romantic life would form an interesting
volume; for few who recollect this venerable priest, in his day
such a favorite with the young, knew that he had figured in great
political events, and in the struggle of Belgium for freedom had led
her armies.
Under the impulse of these fathers a collegiate institution was
opened, and continued for some years on the spot where the new
magnificent cathedral is rising; and old New York Catholics smiled
when a recent scribbler asserted that the site of that noble edifice
was a gift from the city. Trinity, the Old Brick church, and some
other churches we could name were built on land given by the ruling
powers, but no Catholic church figures in the list. The college was
finally closed, from the fact that difficulties in Maryland prevented
the order from supplying necessary professors to maintain its high
position.
To secure to young ladies similar advantages for superior education,
some Ursuline nuns were induced to cross the Atlantic. They were
hailed with joy, and their academy was wonderfully successful. The
superior was a lady whose appearance was remarkably striking, and
whose cultivation and ability impressed all. Unfortunately they came
under restrictions which soon deprived New York of them. Unless
novices joined them within a certain number of years, they were to
return to Ireland.
In a new country vocations could be only a matter of time, and as the
Ursuline order required a dowry, the vocations of all but wealthy
young ladies were excluded, and even of these when subject to a
guardian.
As the Catholic body had increased, a new church was begun in a spot
then far out of the city, described as between the Broadway and the
Bowery road. This was old St. Patrick's, of which the corner-stone
was laid June 8th, 1809. This was to be the cathedral of the future
bishop; and the Orphan Asylum, now thriving under the care of an
incorporated society, was ere long to be placed near the new church.
During this period a strange case occurred in a New York court
that settled for that State, at least, a question of importance to
Catholics. It settled as a principle of law that the confession of a
Catholic to a priest was a privileged communication, which the priest
could not be called upon or permitted to reveal.
"Restitution had been made to a man named James Keating, through
the Rev. Father Kohlmann, of certain goods which had been stolen
from him. Keating had previously made a complaint against one
Philips and his wife, as having received the goods thus stolen,
and they were indicted for a misdemeanor before the justices
of the peace. Keating having afterward stated that the goods
had been restored to him through the instrumentality of Father
Kohlmann, the latter was cited before the court, and required to
give evidence in regard to the person or persons from whom he had
received them. This he refused to do, on the ground that no court
could require a priest to give evidence in regard to matters known
to him only under the seal of confession. Upon the case being sent
to the grand-jury, Father Kohlmann was subpoenaed to attend before
them, and appeared in obedience to the process, but in respectful
terms again declined answering. On the trial which ensued, Father
Kohlmann was again cited to appear as a witness in the case.
Having been asked certain questions, he entreated that he might
be excused, and offered his reasons to the court. With consent
of counsel, the question was put off for some time, and finally
brought on for argument on Tuesday, the 8th of June, 1813, before
a court composed of the Hon. De Witt Clinton, mayor of the city;
the Hon. Josiah Ogden Hoffman, recorder; and Isaac S. Douglass,
and Richard Cunningham, Esqs., sitting aldermen. The Hon. Richard
Riker, afterward for so many years recorder of the city, and
Counsellor Sampson, volunteered their services in behalf of Father
Kohlmann....
"The decision was given by De Witt Clinton at some length. Having
shown that, according to the doctrine and practice of the Catholic
Church, a priest who should reveal what he had heard in the
confessional would become infamous and degraded in the eyes of
Catholics, and as no one could be called upon to give evidence
which would expose him to infamy, he declared that the only way
was to excuse a priest from answering in such cases."
This decision, by the influence of De Witt Clinton, when Governor of
the State, was incorporated into the Revised Statutes as part of the
_lex scripta_ of the State.
With this period, too began the publication of Catholic works in New
York, which has since attained such a wonderful development. Bernard
Dornin stands as the patriarch of the Catholic book trade of New
York, of which an interesting sketch will be found in the appendix to
Bishop Bayley's work. He also gives a list of subscribers to some of
the earliest works, which will possess no little interest to older
Catholic families, who can here claim ancestors as not only Catholic,
but devoted to their faith, and anxious to spread its literature. We
have looked over the list, and amid familiar names have endeavored
to find the oldest now living. If we do not err greatly, it is the
distinguished lawyer Charles O'Conor, Esq.
When Pope Pius VII. was restored to Rome, another son of St. Dominic
was chosen; and the Rev. John Connolly was consecrated the second
bishop of New York. After making such arrangements as he could in
Ireland for the good of his diocese, he set sail from Dublin, but
experienced a long and dangerous passage. From the absence of all
notice of any kind, except the mere fact of his name among the
passengers, his reception was apparently a most private one. He was
utterly a stranger in a strange land, called from the studies of the
cloister to form and rule a diocese of considerable extent, without
any previous knowledge of the wants of his flock, and utterly without
resources.
His diocese, which embraced the State of New York and part of New
Jersey, contained but four priests, three belonging to the Jesuits
in Maryland, and liable to be called away at any moment, as two were
almost immediately after his arrival. The college and convent had
disappeared, and the church seemed to have lost in all but numbers.
Thirteen thousand Catholics were to be supplied with pastors, and
yet the trustee system stood a fearful barrier in his way. As Bishop
Bayley well observes,
"The trustee system had not been behind its early promise, and
trustees of churches had become so accustomed to have every thing
their own way, that they were not disposed to allow even the
interference of a bishop.
"In such a state of things, he was obliged to assume the office of
a missionary priest, rather than a bishop; and many still living
remember the humility and earnest zeal with which he discharged
the laborious duties of the confessional, and traversed the city
on foot to attend upon the poor and sick.
"Bishop Connolly was not lacking in firmness, but the great wants
of his new diocese made it necessary for him to fall in, to a
certain extent, with the established order of things, and this
exposed him afterward to much difficulty and many humiliations."
Yet he secured some good priests and ecclesiastical students from
Kilkenny College, whom he gradually raised to the priesthood, his
first ordination and the first conferring of the sacrament of holy
orders in the city being that of the Rev. Michael O'Gorman in 1815.
One only of the priests ordained by this first bishop occupying the
see of New York still survives, the Rev. John Shanahan, now at St.
Peter's church, Barclay street.
Under the care of Bishop Connolly the Sisters of Charity began their
labors in the city so long the home of Mother Seton; and, so far as
his means permitted him to yield to his zeal, he increased the number
of churches and congregations in his diocese.
The _Brief Sketch_ gives his portrait, as well as that of his
predecessor.
After an episcopate of nearly ten years, the bishop was taken ill on
his return from the funeral of his first ordained priest, and soon
followed him to the grave. He died at No. 512 Broadway, on the 5th
of February, 1825, and was buried under the cathedral, after having
been exposed for two days in St. Peter's church. The ceremonial was
imposing and attracted general attention, and the remarks of the
papers of the day show the respect entertained for him by all classes
of citizens.
The next bishop of New York was one well known in the country by his
labors, especially by his successful exertions in giving the church
in our republic a college and theological seminary suited to its
wants--Mount St. Mary's College at Emmettsburg, Maryland. The life
of the Rev. John Du Bois had been varied. Born in Paris, he was in
college a fellow-student of Robespierre and Camille Desmoulins; but
actuated by far different thoughts from those which filled the brains
of such men, he devoted himself to the service of God. The revolution
found him a laborious priest at Paris. Escaping in disguise from
France during the Reign of Terror, through the connivance of his old
fellow-collegian, Robespierre, he came to America, bearing letters
of introduction from La Fayette to eminent personages in the United
States.
"Having received faculties from Bishop Carroll, he exercised
the holy ministry in various parts of Virginia and Maryland. He
lived for some time with Mr. Monroe, afterward President of the
United States, and in the family of Gov. Lee, of Maryland. After
the death of Father Frambach, he took charge of the mission of
Frederick in Maryland, of which mission he may be said in reality
to have been the founder. When he arrived there, he celebrated
mass in a large room which served as a chapel, and afterward
built the first church. But though Frederick was his headquarters,
he did not confine himself to it, but made stations throughout all
the surrounding country, at Montgomery, Winchester, Hagerstown,
and Emmettsburg, everywhere manifesting the same earnest zeal and
indomitable perseverance. Bishop Bruté relates, as an instance of
his activity and zeal, that once, after hearing confessions on
Saturday evening, he rode during the night to near Montgomery, a
distance of thirty-five to forty miles, to administer the last
sacraments to a dying woman, and was back hearing confessions in
the morning, at the Mountain, singing high mass and preaching,
without scarcely any one knowing that he had been absent at all.
"In 1808, the Rev. Mr. Du Bois, having previously become a member
of the Society of St. Sulpice, in Baltimore, went to reside at
Emmettsburg, and laid the foundation of Mount St. Mary's College,
which was afterward destined to be the means of so much usefulness
to the Catholic Church in America. From this point, now surrounded
by so many hallowed associations in the minds of American
Catholics, by the sound religious education imparted to so many
young men from various parts of the United States, 'by the many
fervent and holy priests, trained under his direction,' and by
the prudent care with which he cherished the rising institute of
the Sisters of Charity at St. Joseph's, he became the benefactor,
not of any particular locality, but of the whole Catholic body
throughout the United States."
On coming to his diocese after his consecration in Baltimore in
October, 1826, he found three churches and four or six priests in New
York City; a church and one priest at Brooklyn, Albany, and a few
stations elsewhere. But the trustee system fettered the progress of
Catholicity.
Long devoted to the cause of education for secular life or the
service of the altar, Bishop Du Bois's fondest desire was to endow
his diocese with another Mount St. Mary's, but all his efforts
failed. A hospital was also one of his early projects; but these and
other good works could spring up only when the way had been prepared
by his trials, struggles, and sufferings.
During his administration the number of Catholics increased greatly,
and new churches sprang up in the city and other parts of the
diocese. Of these various foundations and the zealous priests of
that day many interesting details are given, to which we can but
refer--the erection of St. Mary's, Christ church, Transfiguration,
St. Joseph's, St. Nicholas's, St. Paul's at Harlem. The services of
the Very Rev. Doctor Power, of Rev. Felix Varela, of Rev. Messrs.
Levins and Schueller, and other clergymen of that day are not yet
forgotten.
The excitement caused by the Act of Catholic Emancipation in England
had its counterpart here, stimulated too by jealousy at the influx
of foreign labor. The church had had her day of penal laws and wild
excitement; now war was to be made through the press. About 1835 it
began in New York. The use of falsehood against Catholicity seems to
be considered by some one of the higher virtues. Certainly there is
a strange perversion of conscience on the point. The anti-Catholic
literature of that period is a curiosity that must cause some cheeks
to tingle if there is any manhood left. They took up Fulkes's
_Confutation of the Rhemish Testament_, reprinted the text from
it, and affixed to it a certificate of several clergymen that it
was a reprint from the original published at Rheims. It was not.
They caught up a poor creature from a Magdalen asylum in Montreal,
and concocted a book, laying the scene in the Hôtel Dieu, commonly
called the Convent of the Black Nuns, at Montreal. The book was so
infamous that the Harpers issued it under the name of Howe & Bates.
It was published daily in _The Sun_ newspaper, and had an immense
circulation. Colonel William L. Stone, a zealous Protestant, went to
the spot, and, there convinced of the fraud, published an exposure
of the vile slanders. He was assailed in a satire called _The Vision
of Rubeta_, and the pious Protestant community swallowed the filthy
details. At last there arose a quarrel over the spoils. A triangular
lawsuit between the Harpers, the Rev. Mr. Slocum, and Maria Monk in
the court of chancery gave some strange disclosures, more startling
than the fictitious ones of the book. Vice-Chancellor McCoun in
disgust turned them out of his court, and told them to go before a
jury; but none of them dared to face twelve honest men.
A paper called _The Downfall of Babylon_ flourished for a time on
this anti-Catholic feeling, reeking with lewdness and impurity. At
last their heroine and tool, Maria Monk, cast off and scouted, ended
her days on Blackwell's Island.
Among the curiosities of this period was a work of S. F. B. Morse,
(we used in our younger days to think the initials stood for Savage
Furious Bigot,) entitled _Brutus, or a Foreign Conspiracy against
the Liberties of the United States_. The queen of France had given
the Bishop of St. Louis some altar paintings, and herein was the
conspiracy. We saw a picture the other day of Mr. Morse with the
stars of several foreign orders of knighthood on his breast; he has
received many, some from Catholic sovereigns, and, we believe, one
from the pope. Brutus should certainly take him in hand; for some of
these orders require knights to swear to things that would be rather
awkward for a zealous Protestant to undertake. _Et tu Brute!_
The controversies of that day would furnish matter for an article in
themselves. They were the topic of the day, and led to many curious
scenes. Among the Catholic controvertists, the Rev. Mr. Levins was
particularly incisive and effective; Rev. Mr. Varela dealt gentler
but heavy blows, being keen in argument and sound in learning. A
tract on the five different Bibles of the American Bible Society
was one of those occasions where, departing from the defensive,
the Catholic apologist assumed the offensive. And this time it
was highly offensive. At that time the Bible Society published a
Spanish Bible, and Testaments in French, Spanish, and Portuguese,
all Catholic versions, merely omitting the notes of the Catholic
translators. _Appleton's Cyclopædia_ asserts that "the American Bible
Society, made up of materials more thoroughly Puritanic, and less
Lutheran and continental, ... has never published any other than the
canonical (Protestant) books;" but this is not so. The Spanish Bible
of 1824 contains the very books which in other editions they reject
absolutely. It is true that in the edition of 1825 they left them out
of the body of the book, but kept them in the list of books. After
that they disappeared, while the title-page still falsely professed
to give the _Bible_ translated by Bishop Scio de San Miguel, without
the slightest intimation that part of Bishop Scio's work was omitted.
We once bought Bagster's edition of the Vulgate, and found ourselves
the victim of a similar fraud.
Mr. Varela exposed the inconsistency of their publishing in one
language as inspired what they rejected in another; of translating
a passage in one sense in one volume, and in another in a Bible
standing beside it. The subject caused a sensation. After
deliberating on the matter, it was determined to suppress all these
Catholic versions; they were accordingly withdrawn. The stereotype
plates were melted up; and the printed copies were, as we were
assured, committed to the flames, although it took some time to
effect this greatest Bible-burning ever witnessed in New York.
Meanwhile New York was not without its organs of Catholic sentiment.
_The Truth-Teller_ was for many years the vehicle of information and
defence. The editor, William Denman, still survives to witness the
progress made since that day when he battled almost alone among the
press of the land. _The Catholic Diary_, and _The Green Banner_, and
_The Freeman's Journal_ followed.
While the controversy fever lasted, some curious scenes took place.
Catholics, especially poor servant-girls, were annoyed at all times
and in all places, in the street, at the pump--for those were not
days of Croton water--and even in their kitchens. One Protestant
clergyman of New York had quite a reputation for the gross indecency
that characterized his valorous attacks of this kind. The servant of
a lady in Beekman street--people in good circumstances lived there
then--was a constant object of his zeal. One day, report said, after
dining with the lady, he descended to the kitchen, and began twitting
the girl about the confessional, and coupling this with the grossest
charges against the Catholic clergy. The girl bore it for a time,
and when ordering him out of her realm failed, she seized a poker
and dealt her indecent assailant a blow on the head that sent him
staggering to the stairs. While he groped his way bewildered to the
parlor, the girl hastened to her room, bundled up her clothes, and
left the house. The clergyman was long laid up from the consequence
of his folly, and every attempt made to hush the matter up; but
an eccentric Catholic of that day, Joseph Trench, got up a large
caricature representing the scene, which went like wild-fire, attack
being always popular, and an attack on the Protestant clergy being
quite a novelty. Trivial as the whole affair was, it proved more
effective than the soundest theological arguments, and Mary Ann
Wiggins with her poker really closed the great controversial period.
It had its good effects, nevertheless, in making Catholics earnest
in their faith. Their numbers were rapidly increasing, and with them
churches and institutions. Besides the Orphan Asylum, an institution
for those who had lost only one parent, the Half-Orphan Asylum, was
commenced and long sustained, mainly by the zeal and means of Mr.
Glover, a convert whose name should stand high in the memory of New
York Catholics. This institution, now merged in the general Orphan
Asylum, had in its separate existence a long career of usefulness
under the care of the Sisters of Charity.
Bishop Du Bois was unremitting in his efforts to increase the number
of his clergy and the institutions of his diocese. The progress was
marked. Besides clergymen from abroad, he ordained, or had ordained,
twenty-one who had been trained under his own supervision, and who
completed their divinity studies chiefly at the honored institution
which he had founded in Maryland; among these was Gregory B. Pardow,
who was, if we mistake not, the first native of the city elevated to
the priesthood. Five of these priests have since been promoted to
the episcopacy, as well as two others ordained in his time by his
coadjutor.
In manners, Bishop Du Bois was the polished French gentleman of the
old _régime_; as a clergyman, learned and strict in his ideas, his
administrative powers were always deemed great, but in their exercise
in his diocese they were constantly thwarted by the trustee system.
But he was not one easily intimidated; and when the trustees of the
cathedral, in order to force him to act contrary to the dictates of
his own better judgment, if not his conscience, threatened to deprive
him of his salary, he made them a reply that is historical, "Well,
gentlemen, you may vote the salary or not, just as seems good to you.
I do not need much; I can live in the basement or in the garret; but
whether I come up from the basement, or down from the garret, I will
still be your bishop."
He had passed the vigor of manhood when he was appointed to the see
of New York, and the constant struggle aged him prematurely. It
became necessary for him to call for a younger hand to assist. The
position was one that required a singularly gifted priest. The future
of Catholicity in New York depended on the selection of one who,
combining the learning and zeal of the missionary priest with that
_donum famæ_ which gives a man influence over his fellow-men, and
that skill in firm but almost imperceptible government which is the
characteristic of a great ruler, could place Catholicity in New York
on a firm, harmonious basis, instinct with the true spirit of life,
that would insure its future success. Providence guided the choice.
Surely no man more confessedly endowed with all these qualities could
have been selected than the Rev. John Hughes, trained by Bishop
Du Bois at Mount St. Mary's, and then a priest of the diocese of
Philadelphia, where his dialectic skill had been evinced in a long
and well-maintained controversy.
The final overthrow of the trustee system gave the church freedom,
and new institutions of every kind which had been imperatively
required sprang up. A college at Fordham, the forerunner of the
several Catholic colleges of the State, was soon founded; a convent
of Ladies of the Sacred Heart, for the education of young ladies;
Sisters of Mercy with their various important labors came to help
the good work. But now a large German Catholic immigration began.
Bishop Hughes saw the want and the means; a development of the German
churches, especially under the care of the Redemptorist fathers, soon
followed.
The position of the Catholic children in regard to their
participation in those educational advantages next attracted his
care. The prevalent spirit in those institutions for which Catholics
as well as Protestants were taxed was essentially anti-Catholic; the
books used were often vile in their character, whenever Catholicity
was touched upon. Think of Huntington's Geography with a picture at
Asia of "Pagan Idolatry," and at Italy of "Roman Catholic Idolatry."
Think of an arithmetic--Pike's, we believe--with a question like
this, "If a pope can pray a soul out of purgatory in three days,
a cardinal in four, and a bishop in six, how long would it take
all three to pray them out?" A Catholic girl in the Rutgers Female
Institute, when the geography was given to her, happened to open to
Italy, and, outraged at the wanton insult to her feelings, threw the
book on the floor, burst into tears, and left the school; but Rutgers
Female Institute could use such books as they chose, and Catholics
could send there or elsewhere. It was not a State creation, supported
by taxes drawn from all; but did any right exist to force Catholics
to the alternative of submitting to such degrading insults or keep
aloof from schools which they were taxed to support? or rather, the
question was, Could Catholics in the State of New York be compelled
to support the Protestant church and aid in its extension?
Bishop Bayley sketches briefly the other important acts of the
administration of Bishop Hughes, and concludes,
"But though much has been done, much remains to be accomplished.
The 'two hundred Catholics' of 1785 were better provided for
than the two hundred thousand who now (1853) dwell within the
boundaries of the city of New York. It is true that no exertions
could have kept pace with the tide of emigration which has been
pouring in upon our shores, especially during the last few years.
The number of priests, churches, and schools, rapidly as they have
increased, are entirely inadequate to the wants of our Catholic
population, and render it imperative that every exertion should
be made to supply the deficiency. What has been done so far has,
by God's blessing, been accomplished by the Catholics of New York
themselves. Comparatively very little assistance has been received
from the liberality of our brethren in other countries. And while
we have done so much for ourselves, we have contributed liberally
toward the erection of churches and other works of piety in
various parts of the United States.
"Though the Catholic Church in this country has increased much
more largely by conversions than is generally supposed, yet,
for the most part, its rapid development has been owing to the
emigration of Catholics from foreign countries; and, if we desire
to make this increase permanent, and to keep the children in the
faith of their fathers, we must, above all things, take measures
to imbue the minds of the rising generation of Catholics with
sound religious principles. This can only be done by giving them a
good Catholic education. In our present position, the school-house
has become second in importance only to the house of God itself.
We have abundant cause for thankfulness to God on account of the
many blessings which he has conferred on us; but we will show
ourselves unworthy of these blessings if we do not do all that
is in our power to promote every good work by which they may be
increased and confirmed to those who shall come after us."
And though we may now rate the number of Catholics in the city at
four hundred thousand, the language is still applicable.
There are now, we may add, forty Catholic churches on the island,
with parish schools educating twenty-one thousand children of both
sexes; houses of Jesuits, Redemptorists, Fathers of Mercy, Paulists,
Franciscans, Capucins, Dominicans; convents of the Sacred Heart,
houses of Sisters of Charity, Sisters of the Good Shepherd, of Notre
Dame, of the order of St. Dominic, of the Poor of St. Francis, and
of the Third Order of St. Francis; several orphan asylums, two
hospitals, reformatories for boys and girls, a house of protection
for servants, a home for destitute children, a home for aged women,
and a foundling asylum just begun. Yet it is but true that all this
is little for the wants of four hundred thousand Catholics.
Glancing back to the early history, we see in all the work of the
many. In comparison, we have had fewer men of wealth than those
around us; but it must also be added that among those few there
have been still fewer, in proportion, to identify their names with
the great religious works. As we look around through the country,
we see great institutions, churches, colleges, libraries, asylums,
each the act of a single man of wealth; but we cannot show in New
York a single such Catholic work. There are monuments in our great
cemeteries, on each of which more money has been expended than would
erect a church in some neglected part of New York. Which would be the
nobler monument?
We trust that this work, full of interest as it is to all, will
circulate widely among the Catholics of New York and bring home
to all that respect to their predecessors, respect to themselves,
requires of all to take in hand earnestly what yet remains to do to
give us what are absolutely required for worship, for instruction,
for the works of mercy.
CHRISTMAS HYMN.
BY POPE ST. DAMASUS.[127]
Christe potens rerum, redeuntis conditor ævi,
Vox summi sensusque Dei, quem fundit ab altâ
Mente Pater, tantique dedit consortia regni,
Impia tu nostræ domuisti crimina vitæ,
Passus corporeâ mundum vestire figurâ,
Affarique palam populos, hominemque fateri.
Virginei tumuere sinus, innuptaque mater
Arcano obstupuit compleri viscera partu,
Auctorem paritura suum. Mortalia corda
Artificem texere poli, mundique repertor
Pars fuit humani generis, latuitque sub uno
Pectore, qui totum latè complectitur orbem;
Et qui non spatiis terræ, non æquoris undis,
Nec capitur coelo, parvos confluxit in artus.
Quin et supplicii nomen nexusque subisti,
Ut nos surriperes letho, mortemque fugares
Morte tuâ: mox æthereas evectus in auras,
Purgatâ repetis lætum tellure parentem.
TRANSLATION.
Christ, sovereign of all things that be,
Wisdom and Word of God! we see
A new-born world spring forth from thee.
God born of God, and who dost share
His reign supreme, how didst thou bear
The vesture of our dust to wear?
Unto our race thou didst belong--
Didst speak and mingle with the throng,
To bear--to triumph over wrong.
A Virgin's bosom did accord
Repose to Him whom she adored;
In wonder she brought forth her Lord.
Who spread aloft the heavens, the day,
Who built the world--lo! clothed in clay
Hid 'neath one human bosom lay.
Whose hands the universe uphold,
Whom earth, nor seas, nor heavens enfold--
Lo! compassed by a mortal mould.
What anguish didst thou undergo;
What woe, to shelter us from woe;
What death, from death to save us so;
Ere from a world redeemed by grace
Thou didst return aloft through space
To seek the Blessed Father's face.
CONSTANTINA E. BROOKS.
FOOTNOTE:
[127] St. Damasus was of Spanish extraction. He was elected pope in
the year 366, being then sixty years old. During the latter years
of his life the celebrated St. Jerome acted as his secretary, and
mentions him in his epistles as "an incomparable person and a learned
doctor." He is classed by writers with Basil, Athanasius, Ambrose,
and such like men, who have been eminent for their zeal, learning,
and holy lives.
Through his care many valuable public works were executed. He
repaired and beautified the church of St. Laurence near Pompey's
Pillar, and the paintings with which he decorated it were admirable
four hundred years afterward. He also drained some of the impure
springs of the Vatican, and repaired and adorned with epitaphs in
verse many of the tombs of the martyrs interred in the Catacombs.
A collection of nearly forty of those epitaphs is still extant,
and justifies the praises which St. Jerome bestows on his poetical
genius. He is also known as the author of many longer poems.
After a life of humility, benevolence, and purity, he died in the
year 384, having filled the papal throne eighteen years. He was
buried in a small oratory near the Ardeatine Way, and his tomb was
identified and described in 1736.
A further interest is thrown around this prelate and poet by recent
investigations. In 1851, Pope Pius IX. employed the distinguished
Chevalier G. B. de Rossi to prepare a work illustrating the
cemeteries which underlie the vineyards of the Via Appia, on each
side of which are some of the most extensive and most important.
M. de Rossi found here in fragments, which he put together, an
inscription in honor of Eusebius, the authorship of which is
distinctly ascribed to Damasus--_Damasus Episcopus fecit Eusebio
Episcopo et Martyri_.
The slab of marble on which this was engraved had been used (as was
seen by marks on the other side) for some public monument in honor of
the Emperor Caracalla.
THE TRUE ORIGIN OF GALLICANISM.[128]
A curious book has lately appeared in France. It is not so much the
production of the pen as the result of the judicious industry of M.
Gérin, judge of the civil tribunal of Paris. In his introduction
to the work he says that it is not his intention to write a book,
but to put together materials for history and for the better
understanding of a vital question, which has agitated the French
world especially for three hundred years--the infallibility of
the sovereign pontiff and his superiority to a general council of
bishops. It would be difficult to exaggerate the speculative value
as well as the practical importance of this doctrine. M. Gérin has
rendered an inestimable service to historic truth and to the church
by showing the origin of the so-called Gallican doctrine, which
denied the infallibility of the pontiff, contrary to the practice and
opinion that had prevailed among Christians for fifteen or sixteen
hundred years. It is not our intention to prove the possessive
or prescriptive right of this doctrine. This has been amply done
in our day in English by several authors, while the work of the
brothers Ballerini and Zaccharia's reply to Hontheim, the well-known
Anti-Febronius, are open to the study of the learned. What we shall
do will be to follow M. Gérin in showing the base origin of a
teaching which no array of brilliant names can make legitimate.
At the outset we acknowledge the difficulty of the task. The work
is so tersely and so logically compiled that one is at a loss how
to break in upon so connected a recital, lest it should impair the
effect of what he selects, by detaching it from its antecedents
as well as from its consequents. But as all may not, at least for
some time, have it in their power to read a translation of this
interesting volume, we shall risk something for their information.
It has been commonly supposed that the Gallican doctrine was
generally held by the French clergy during the reign of Louis XIV.,
and that in ordering it to be taught throughout his kingdom that
sovereign only seconded the desire of his prelates and people.
Never has a more unfounded idea been foisted upon credulity. No
one ever heard of any such doctrine before the Chancellor Gerson
at the Council of Constance hesitatingly broached it, in order to
apply it, if possible, as a remedy and preventive of schism in the
church. Like all opinions not well ventilated and examined, it found
some who favored it, and at the schismatical assembly of Basle it
acquired a number of followers. These, however, were soon obliged to
yield; and in the Council of Florence a dogmatic decree was drawn up
and adopted by the fathers, and confirmed by the sovereign pontiff,
which declared the latter to be possessed of the _full and supreme
jurisdiction of Peter_, and the doctor or teacher of the universal
church--a phrase that implied the infallibility of the pope; for a
teacher is rightly so called only when he possesses the principles
of his branch in such a way as to impart the degree of certainty
peculiar to it. The church possesses the assistance of Christ, and
is, therefore, infallible; and the organ or teacher of that church
must have that same assistance which shall make him infallible.
Otherwise we would have the, to say the least, strange consequence
that ordinarily the church is liable to be misled; extraordinarily
only--for councils must from their nature be unusual--is she to be
regarded as free from error. It should be borne in mind that this
definition of the oecumenical synod, A.D. 1439, was made after
due consultation; for when Eugenius IV. had caused his rights and
prerogatives to be discussed before him by the Greek and Latin
theologians, the Greeks, on leaving the presence of the pontiff,
went to the emperor of Constantinople, then in Florence, and renewed
before him the examination of the question. The result was, that
they did not oppose the teaching of the papal doctors, but merely
required two rights for their party: one, that no council should
be called without the emperor; and the other, that in case of
appeal the patriarchs should not be obliged to present themselves
for judgment, but that legates should be sent into the province in
question to try the cause. Not a word was said against the doctrines.
The pope refused to grant these requests, and the emperor broke off
negotiations. Still, through the mediation of influential prelates
on both sides, they were resumed again immediately; and the Greek
fathers acknowledged the Roman pontiff "locum gerentem et vicarium
Christi, pastorem et doctorem omnium Christianorum, regentem et
gubernantem Dei Ecclesiam"--to hold the place of Christ and to be his
vicar, the pastor and doctor of all Christians, the ruler and head
of the church. A few days afterward, the formal dogmatic definition
was given by the united fathers of both churches, confirmed by the
pope, and subscribed by him, by the cardinals, the emperor John
Paloeologus, and the Greek and Latin fathers of the council, with
the exception of one, Mark, Bishop of Ephesus, whose bad faith in
quoting the Greek manuscripts was accidentally made known to the
whole council. His servant had erased the wrong passage, which fact
the bishop did not discover until he was reading the code in public.
The words of the definition are these:
"We define that the holy apostolic see and the Roman pontiff
hold the primacy throughout the whole world; that the same Roman
pontiff is the successor of blessed Peter, prince of the apostles,
and the true vicar of Christ, the head of the whole church, and
the father and doctor of all Christians; that to him, in blessed
Peter, was given by our Lord Jesus Christ full power to feed,
rule, and govern the universal church, as is contained, also, in
the acts of oecumenical councils and in the sacred canons."
It was impossible for Gallican theologians to ignore the force of
these words. To elude it they had recourse to the last phrase,
"_as_ is contained in the acts of oecumenical councils and in the
sacred canons," and appealed to tradition to explain the meaning
of the fathers of Florence. Their meaning, however, is clear from
what they determined on a few days before the decision. In their
written declaration that phrase is not found. Moreover, the phrase
itself is in corroboration of the decision; for in reality tradition
bears out fully the doctrine it contains. The Greek text of Cardinal
Bessarion has this phrase, ~kat' hon eropon~--"according to
the manner"--and it is this that the Gallic doctors thought favored
them. This wording does not, however, alter the sense we have given.
With regard to the phrase itself, learned men, and among them the
author of _Anti-Febronius_, state that in the original document
such an appendage had no existence whatsoever. With this decision
before them, how did it happen that such teaching as at a later date
obtained the ascendency in France, and in some other parts of Europe,
could have met with favor? The work of M. Gérin answers this question
clearly, and shows that intrigue and royal influence and power did
the work.
The documents with which he opens his collection refer to the year
1663. They, for the most part, have hitherto been entirely unknown,
and were found by M. Gérin among the MSS. of the time of Louis XIV.
in the Bibliothèque Impériale--MSS. Colbert. At that time ill-humor
existed between the French and Papal courts, growing out of a quarrel
between the servants of the French ambassador at Rome. This was
settled for the moment; but on the appointment of the Duc de Créqui,
the feuds were renewed, owing to the disposition of that ambassador,
whose pride had been wounded by his having been obliged to pay the
first visits to the relatives of the pope, who were in the first
places of the government. The retainers of the duke on the 12th of
August, 1662, attacked and beat the Corsican guard in the service of
the pope. The pope sent an envoy to visit the duke, who pretended
that an attempt had been made on his life. Instead of receiving the
messenger of the pontiff graciously, he threatened to throw him out
of the window, and refused all apologies. This was a spark thrown
into other inflammable matter that brought on an invasion of the
papal territory, and other still worse disasters to the church. The
king, as a consequence of his difficulties with the pope, became
surrounded with evilly-disposed counsellors, whom, to do him
justice, he sometimes curbed. It was during this political trouble
that the enemies of Rome sought to deal her a blow fatal to her
influence. The Jansenist opinions had received a severe condemnation
in the decrees of the sovereign pontiff and through the action of
Louis XIV. Those who professed them were obliged to sign a formula
of submission to the church, and receive the doctrine of Rome.
There were many who, while they did so, still held to the erroneous
teachings of their sect. Among these there was an Abbé Bourseis, a
man of some ability, but of more tact in courtly life. In 1661, on
the 12th of December, a bachelor of theology defended the following
thesis:
"We acknowledge Christ head of the church in such a manner that
he, on ascending to heaven, intrusted the government of it first
to Peter, and afterward to his successors, and gave them the same
infallibility he himself possessed, whenever they should speak
authoritatively, (_ex cathedra_.) There is, therefore, in the
Roman church an infallible judge of controversy regarding faith,
even apart from general councils, in questions both of right and
of fact."
About the same time, the Abbé Bourseis seized upon this opportunity
and gained over the minister Colbert; while the son of the minister
Letellier brought over his father. The thesis was represented as
an attempt of the Jesuits against the government. About the same
time, Drouet de Villeneuve, a bachelor of the College of Navarre,
defended the same doctrine in substance. The advocate-general was
instructed to proceed in the case. The parliament having been
informed of what had occurred, issued a decree against the thesis,
on the 22d of January, 1663, forbidding any one to write, hold, or
teach such propositions under penalty of being proceeded against
by the courts; and commanded this decree to be placed on the
register of the said faculty of Paris. The parliament deputed two
counsellors of the court, and Achille de Harlay, the substitute
of the _procureur-général_, to have the decree registered. These
persons repaired to the Sorbonne on the 31st January, 1663. "Despite
the menaces addressed to the indocile doctors, by Talon, the
advocate-general, and Harlay, the faculty refused to obey; and only
agreed to take the matter into consideration."[129] M. de Mincé
and M. de Breda, favorable to the government, said the faculty
had not changed its sentiments and did not approve the thesis. No
conclusion was come to; the discussion was adjourned to the 1st.
Nothing, however, was done on the first nor on the 5th of February.
On the 9th, the archbishops of Auch and of Paris were present. The
first spoke against the decree and action of the parliament; the
second said no opposition should be made to the decree, but that the
faculty would be able to arrange things in a satisfactory manner if
they discussed the matter amicably with the first president of the
parliament. The Archbishop of Auch said that general councils were
necessary only against schism; the rest, against heresy as well as
schism, but for nothing else. No conclusion was reached. On the 15th
of February, M. de Breda reported, and read the answer of the first
president, and, hearing a great uproar, said he was astonished to
see those present so excited against the parliament. M. Grandin,
syndic of the faculty, to justify himself for having signed the
thesis, spoke for a long time, and tried to give a good meaning to
the thesis, and explained the third proposition, touching the need
of general councils, in the same way as the Archbishop of Auch. M.
de Mincé wished the decree registered. M. Morel thought it ought not
to be registered before the thesis had been censured. He quoted some
text of St. Gregory Nazianzen, adding that, if it were registered,
the faculty would be like the statue of Memnon. He was followed in
his opinion by M. Amiot. The Rev. P. Nicolai, MM. Bail, Joisel,
Chamillard, and all the doctors of St. Sulpice, and of the house of
Chardonnet, were of the same opinion, and declaimed strongly against
the harangue of the substitute, Achille de Harlay. M. Lestocq,
professor of the Sorbonne, wished to prove the decree null both
in matter and form. M. Chamillard the younger said the Council of
Constance was not received, and that its doctrine was only probable;
but the greater part of the doctors having risen against him, he was
obliged to say it had been received in part. M. Bossuet[130] here
made a feint of bringing forward a new project; upon which Leblond,
professor of the Sorbonne, Bonst, also professor, Joisel and Blanger,
of the Sorbonne, following the advice of the Père Nicolai, left
their places in an indignant manner, saying that the harangue of the
substitute ought to be censured. All the professors of the Sorbonne,
without exception, the fathers Louvet and Hermant, Bernardines and
professors in their house, spoke bitterly against the parliament; and
when the Père Hermant undertook to prove the infallibility of the
pope and his superiority over a council, he was followed by nearly
all the monks.
On the 15th, MM. Pignay, Bail, Nicolai, Chaillon, dean of Beauvais,
Joisel, and all the professors of the Sorbonne without exception, as
also MM. Magnay and Charton, opposed the registering.
The chief instructor of the bachelor Villeneuve, the Abbé de Tilloy,
who had signed the thesis, and M. Joisel wished the decree registered
with the explanations of M. Grandin. M. Leblond, professor of the
Sorbonne, and M. Lestocq concluded that it was agreed on that the
registering should be accepted with these explanations. M. Guyard,
of Navarre, said that to do so was to accuse the good faith of those
who had drawn up the conclusion, which had passed by advice of MM. de
Mincé and de Breda. The Rev. Fathers de la Barmondière and Leblanc,
of St. Sulpice, accused the faculty of mortal sin, and the latter
said it was through cowardice and fear of the temporal power that the
decree was registered. M. Cornet, the head professor of Navarre, was
not present at these assemblies.
At the end of this memoir are the list of doctors who took part in
the discussions, and confidential notes regarding each of the members
of the faculty.
"List of doctors who have acted badly, or are suspected, on the
subject of the decree of the parliament, (that is, opposed the
king.)
MM. Cornet,
Grandin, professor,
De Lestocq, "
Chamillard, "
Leblond, "
Bonst, "
Despérier, "
Joisel,
Chamillard, brother of the professor,
Pignay,
Morel,
Charton,
Gobinet,
Amiot,
Rouillé,
Alleaume de Tilloy,
Demure,
Magnet,
Quatrehommes,
Bossuet,
De la Barmondière,
Leblanc,
Dez de Fontaine,
Bail,
Du Fournel,
De Pinteville.
"Doctors who have acted well on this same occasion, and who
particularly distinguished themselves, (that is, favored the king.)
MM. De Mincé, curé de Gonesse--very well.
De Breda, curé de St. André--admirably.
Duzon,
Vaillant,
Faure,
Fortin,
Cocquelin,
Caspin."
"SKETCH OF THE DOCTORS WHO HAVE ACTED BADLY OR ARE SUSPECTED.
"Before making remarks on these gentlemen, I protest sincerely
that I consider them all good men, full of true ecclesiastical
zeal, but, to my mind, in this affair not bearing themselves
according to knowledge.
"M. Cornet,[131] a fine mind, a very able man, of irreproachable
life, with so great a reputation among those of his party that he
is their head beyond dispute, and the soul of their deliberations.
Those most attached to him are MM. Grandin, Chamillard, and
Morel--the first two with more reserve and management, the last
more openly and frankly.
"Nothing can be expected from the Carmelites, Augustinians, and
Franciscans."
"COMMUNITIES TO BE FEARED ON THIS OCCASION.
"That of the Jesuits under the Père Bazot.
"That of St. Sulpice, where, to tell the truth, ecclesiastics are
educated in a spirit of perfect regularity; but we are assured
that every one there is extremely in favor of the papal authority.
"That of St. Nicolas du Chardonnet.
"That known as the Trente-Trois, at the Hôtel d'Albiac, near the
College of Navarre, under M. Charton.
"That of M. Gilot.
"There are several _dévots_ who aid these in a work which good
Frenchmen and true subjects of the king strive to prevent. The
principal are MM. Dalbon, De la Motte, Fénélon, and M. d'Abély
named for the bishopric of Rodez."
The decree, says M. Gérin, was registered on the 4th of April;
but on the same day a thesis similar to the one it condemned was
maintained, with the approbation of the syndic of the faculty, in
the college of the Bernardines, by the Frère Laurent Desplantes. On
the 14th of April, in consequence of this being denounced by royal
agents, the parliament cited before it M. Grandin, the syndic, the
professor presiding at the thesis, the disputant, and the superiors
of the Bernardines. Talon, the advocate-general, spoke with great
warmth. "Strange," he said in his prosecution,--"strange, that, with
unexampled rashness, they have dared to renew these evil propositions
on the very day the decree was registered in the faculty." Grandin
held out against the storm, and the parliament suspended him from
his duties. This rigor frightened the timid, and some days afterward
the court received a number of equivocal propositions, subscribed by
sixty-six doctors only. The whole number was over seven hundred. M.
Deslions, of the Sorbonne, in his MS. journal,[132] lets us into the
secret of the way in which these six propositions were gotten up.
They are as follows:
"1. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign
pontiff has any authority over the temporal rights of the most
Christian king; on the contrary, the faculty always opposed those
who favored that authority, even understood as indirect only.
"2. It is the doctrine of the faculty that the most Christian king
acknowledges and has no superior at all in temporal matters except
God; and this is its ancient doctrine, from which it will never
recede.
"3. It is the doctrine of the faculty that subjects owe fidelity
and obedience to the most Christian king in such a way that they
can be dispensed from them under no pretext.
"4. It is the doctrine of the faculty that they neither approve
nor have approved any proposition, contrary to the authority of
the most Christian king, or to the genuine (_germanis_) liberties
of the Gallican Church and canons received in the realm, v. g.,
that the sovereign pontiff can depose bishops in despite of these
canons.
"5. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign
pontiff is above an oecumenical council.
"6. It is not the doctrine of the faculty that the sovereign
pontiff is infallible if no consent of the church support him,
(_nullo accedente ecclesiæ consensu_.)"
With regard to these propositions, M. Deslions writes:
"M. Bouthillier, doctor of the Sorbonne, and later member of the
assembly of 1682, and Bishop of Troyes, told me that, in the
conference held among the doctors deputed to draw up the six
articles presented to the king on the part of the Sorbonne, in the
first article, which concerns the deposition of kings, the phrase
'on no pretext,' (_nullo prætextu_,) was purposely inserted; and
that thereupon some one present objected the case of heresy. M.
Morel then said that this would be a _reason_, and not a simple
_pretext_, for deposing a king. He told me, also, that he had
seen in the MS. of M. Grandin, at the sixth article, that the
pope is not infallible _if some kind of consent_ of the church
do not support him. They resolved to put instead of this, _if no
consent_ support him; which is the same thing, and in some way
less even. So true is it that these articles were drawn up in the
most equivocal language the framers could suitably employ. M.
Bouthillier learned this of M. Gobinet, one of the deputies."
In confirmation of this, M. Gérin quotes a comment on these articles
made by Pinsson, advocate of the parliament, by order of Colbert. He
qualifies all the propositions as equivocal or captious. He says:
"1. This first proposition is captious; it should have been
general, affirmative, specific, etc.
"2. The king did not need the avowal of the faculty to prove that
he knows no superior in temporal matters, this avowal being much
more advantageous to the popes themselves, who have recognized
it, as does Pope Innocent III., cap. _Per venerabilem_, in the
decretals.
"3. This repetition too often made of the words 'most Christian
king' was unnecessary for Frenchmen, and it would have been less
suspicious and more advantageous if, in speaking of the king, they
had given to him no title, etc.
"4. This fourth is equivocal and suspicious, etc.
"5. The affectation of framing the fifth article in negative
expressions cannot but be suspicious, etc.
"6. The last article should not have been conceived in negative
terms, but in affirmative; to wit, that the pope of himself is
not infallible without the consent of the universal church. And
the phrase, 'If no consent of the church support him,' is too
equivocal in this place," etc.
The offer, in the name of the faculty, of these propositions put
a stop to the difficulty for the time, and the settlement of the
question of redress so unjustifiably and tyrannically urged by Louis
XIV. against the holy see brought with it an external appearance
of peace, while it left a rankling wound that was to break out
afresh in the contests concerning the _regale_, or so-styled "royal
perquisite," seventeen years later.
"This question of the _regale_," says M. Gérin, "was of a date much
anterior to the time of Louis XIV." It consisted in the vindication
by the crown of a presumed title to the revenues of certain dioceses,
and to the nomination of persons to hold benefices in the same, upon
the death or removal of the bishop, and until the newly nominated
bishop had taken the oath of fealty, and had registered it in the
chancellor's chamber, this act being styled the closure of the royal
right, or _regale_. The Council of Lyons had authorized this custom
with regard to bishoprics in which it had been established as a
condition in their foundation, or had existed as an ancient practice;
while it expressly forbade its introduction with respect to those
dioceses in which it had not been received.
"The parliaments undertook, however, to make the custom one of
universal application, compelling the dioceses claiming exemption
to prove their title to be free from it.
"Henry IV. by an edict of 1606, art. 27, declared, 'We do not
intend to enjoy the right of royal perquisite (_regale_) save in
the manner in which we and our predecessors have done, without
extending it further to the prejudice of churches exempt from
it.' This edict was registered in the parliament of Paris without
modification; but on the 24th of August, 1608, the same parliament
pronounced a decree conceived in these terms: 'The court declares
the king to have a right to the royal perquisite from the church
of Belley, as from every other in his kingdom;' and forbidding
advocates to put forward any proposition to the contrary. The
clergy complained to the king, who by letters of 1609 yielded the
execution of the decree. Louis XIII. seemed favorable to the
rights of the church; but after the accession of Louis XIV. these
rights were menaced more than ever, and 'there was no assembly
of the clergy,' particularly after the year 1638, in which a
special commission was not named to attend to the subject of royal
perquisite."[133]
That of 1670 presented a remonstrance to the king through the
Archbishop of Embrun; but in 1673 and 1675, two royal declarations
appeared to the effect that all the churches of the kingdom were
subject to the right of royal perquisite; and that the archbishops
and bishops who had not yet closed it by registering their oath
should go through that formality within six months.
Caulet, Bishop of Pamiers, and Pavillon, Bishop of Alet, standing
on their rights as secured by the custom of exemption, and by the
canons of the general Council of Lyons, refused to obey. The result
was a contest between the civil and ecclesiastical powers, in which
Rome of necessity became engaged. Unheard-of harshness, and cruelty
even, were used against the clergymen who opposed the government.
One vicar-general was condemned to death. Unhappily, there were
many ecclesiastics, who had been provided with benefices by the
government, who not only took sides with it, but, being interested,
were active in keeping up a quarrel the solution of which, in
accordance with the views of Rome, would have proved ruinous to
them. They sold Christ for a few pieces of money. The deputies of
the clergy in 1680, in their regular quinquennial assembly, at
the request of Louis XIV., wrote a flattering letter in favor of
his claims and against the pope. This caused Madame de Sévigné
to criticise them caustically. When speaking of the two prelates
mentioned above, she says, after referring to the then Bishop of
Alet, who had succeeded Pavillon, "But the shade of his saintly
predecessor, and M. de Pamiers--have they signed that letter of
flattery?"
But what were the means used to bring about the assembly of 1682, in
which the four articles of which so much has been said were framed?
That which we have recounted up to this was only the preparation of
the soil; the seed was now to be sown, and fostered with all the
care of royal interest. M. Gérin quotes from the _Procès Verbaux du
Clérgé_, t. v.
"The general agents or procurators of the clergy" (these agents
resided permanently in Paris to protect the interests of the
church in case of collision with the state, or in matters partly
ecclesiastical and partly secular) "were counselled to present
a memorial to the king, and to pray his majesty to allow them
to call together the prelates who were in Paris, on business
connected with their churches, in order that through their
singular prudence they might find means to restore peace and put
every thing in order. The king having permitted this assembly,
it was held during the months of March and of May, 1681, in the
archiepiscopal palace of Paris."
It is humiliating to a Catholic to have to make the avowal, but it
is well known that royal patronage had well-nigh ruined the French
Church, and that not a few bishops unworthy of the name occupied
high and influential places. This assembly, known as "the Little
Assembly," (_La Petite Assemblée_,) met the day after the order
was given. Fifty bishops, of whom the great majority ought to have
been at their posts of duty, were basking in the sunshine of royal
favor, and it was these Louis XIV. called on for advice. Racine has a
sarcastic epigram on them, which M. Gérin quotes:
"Un ordre, hier venu de S. Germain,
Veut qu'on s'assemble; on s'assemble demain;
Notre archévêque et cinquante-deux autres,
Successeurs des apôtres,
S'y trouveront. Or, de savoir quel cas
S'y traitera, c'est encore un mystère.
C'est seulement chose très claire
Que nous avions cinquante-deux prélats
Qui ne residaient pas."
The advice these prelates gave was what might have been expected from
the state of things at the time.
They indorsed the action of the government on four points of
discussion with the holy see:
1. The royal perquisite, which Fleury and Bossuet could not approve.
2. The book of the Abbé Gerbais, censured by Rome as schismatical,
suspected of heresy, and injurious to the holy see; but which they
found full of good doctrine and of deep learning.
3. In the affair of Charonne. This was a case of exemption from royal
nomination in which the king had violated that right. The religious
women of the convent of Charonne, near Paris, which belonged to the
Augustinian rule, enjoyed the privilege, recognized by the civil
power, of electing every three years their superior. Louis XIV.,
however, in 1676, named for their superior a Cistercian nun, whom
the Archbishop of Paris, Harlay de Champvallon, acknowledged, and to
whom he gave the position. The religious appealed to the sovereign
pontiff, who, by a brief dated August 7th, 1680, annulled the act
of the archbishop, and ordered them to proceed to the triennial
election, and take for their superior one of their own number.
4. In the affair of the diocese of Pamiers, of which we have spoken
above.
"On the 2d of May the assembly resolved to ask the king to call
a national council, or general assembly of the clergy, composed
of two deputies of the first order and two of the second from
each province, the latter to have a consulting voice only. The
other details were to be arranged according to the advice of the
commissaries."[134]
The action of this assembly was much criticised and was disapproved
by the people, as can be seen, according to M. Gérin's statement, in
the MSS. of St. Sulpice, i. ii. iii.; Bibl. Mazarine, MSS. 2392, 2398
fr. From these he makes several long and interesting extracts.
In consequence of this resolution of the Little Assembly, "the king,
on the 16th of July, 1681, addressed letters of convocation to the
agents of the clergy, through whom the archbishops of the territory
subject to his majesty were charged to hold provincial assemblies and
cause to be chosen two deputies of the first order and two of the
second, for the general assembly assigned for the 1st of October,
1681."
Before entering upon a history of this body, M. Gérin gives a clear
idea of the question at issue between the king and the pontiff,
and shows that it was of the same nature as that which caused the
struggle, in which the church was finally victorious, between
Gregory VII. and the German emperor, Henry IV. The appointment of
proper pastors for the flock was at stake. Rome sought likewise to
put a stop to the abuse by which laymen were pensioned on dioceses,
whose funds ought to have been devoted to supplying the spiritual
wants of the people, and relieving the poor and orphans. The church
was in imminent danger of servitude, spiritual and temporal, as
Fleury himself states. So far had the usurpation of ecclesiastical
jurisdiction gone that, when Louis XIV., at Strasburg, gave audience
to the bishop of that place, the act of the king in putting his hand
on the crozier of the prelate as he leant forward to hear him was
interpreted as a resumption of investiture by the ring and crozier.
Pelisson, however, the intimate friend of the king, tells us this was
not the case, as he heard him say afterward that such an idea had
not occurred to him; but as the prelate spoke in a rather low tone,
he bent toward him and leaned for support on the crozier.
The government of Louis had wished this assembly for its own ends; it
was therefore determined that nothing should be left undone to secure
a favorable result. The temper of all the members of the French
hierarchy was known: there were some who were feared--these were to
be passed by; some who were doubted--these were to be allured to
compliance; others there were whose worldly spirit and indebtedness
to the crown left no uncertainty as to their course--these were
to be put forward, honored, and made the leaders in the movement
against Rome. Colbert, ably seconded by the worldly Harlay de
Champvallon, Archbishop of Paris, set about the work. His master was
all-powerful; every thing but true virtue was to bend before him.
Canonical forms were to be superseded if found to be trammels, and
persons who contradicted were to be made to feel the weight of royal
displeasure. The legislative bodies even had been reduced to a state
of passive instrumentality, so that, in 1672, a conscientious bishop
of Languedoc complained to Colbert that votes were given without
discussion, and protested that explanations should be made in regard
to the advantages or the necessity of the expenses the states were
called on to vote. In this state of things, the Little Assembly had
been convened and had acted the part we have seen. Before closing
its sessions it named a commission under the presidency of Harlay,
without whose bidding it was to do nothing. This commission drew up
the project of procuration, and, by order of the king, no mention
was made of the part he had had in it. On the 16th of June, 1681,
Colbert writes to the archbishop:
"SIR: You will find accompanying this a copy of the letter of
the king, as approved by his majesty, for the convocation of the
general assembly of the clergy, in which you will remark that
no mention is made of the plan of procuration, placed by you in
my hands. His majesty has thought that nothing should appear as
coming from him that might determine the matters to be acted on in
the said assemblage; but he has resolved to give orders on this
subject _by word of mouth_ to the general agents of the clergy,
and to direct that this project or plan of procuration be sent to
the archbishops, with the explanation that it has been drawn up
by commissioners named at the late assembly, for the purpose of
being sent to all parts; to make known what ought to be treated
of in the said assembly, and to bring about uniformity of powers;
and in order to cause the provincial assemblies to give powers of
procuration to the deputies of the general assembly, conformably
to the project, his majesty will direct that the intendants
of provinces be written to, to command them to impart to the
archbishops his intentions on the subject of the procuration."
M. Gérin gives us here the text of this plan of procuration; it is
from a MS. annotated by the _procureur-général_ De Harlay, brother of
the archbishop. The deputies are
"To repair to the said city of Paris, according to the letters
of the king and of the said agents, and there deliberate, in the
manner contained in the resolution of the said assemblies of March
and May, (the Little Assembly,) on the means of reconciling the
variances respecting the royal right of perquisite (_regale_)
between the pope, on the one side, and the king, on the other; to
determine on all the acts which they shall deem necessary to put
an end to these variances, with the deputies of other provinces,
the same to sign the clauses and conditions that the assembly
shall judge fitting; they are likewise charged and expressly
commanded to employ all proper means to repair the infractions
committed by the court of Rome in the decrees of the concordat _de
causis et de frivolis appellationibus_ in the affairs of Charonne,
of Pamiers, of Toulouse, and others which may have or shall have
transpired; to preserve the jurisdiction of the ordinaries of
the realm, and the various degrees of it in the form sanctioned
by the concordat; to cause the pope, in case of appeal to Rome,
to depute commissaries in France to judge it; to procure, by all
sorts of due and proper means, the preservation of the maxims
and liberties of the Gallican Church; to pass the resolutions
by a plurality of votes, and, for the reasons explained above,
to frame all acts that shall be required, even though there be
any thing demanding a more special commission than is contained
in these presents, promise being given that all that shall have
been granted and signed by them shall be agreed to and observed
inviolably in every particular, according to its form and tenor."
The government foresaw that the second order of the clergy, the
simple priests, would make an attempt to vindicate their right to a
voice. For this reason it determined to have a precedent by which
to act. The Archbishop of Rheims, who was in the interest of the
government, convoked his provincial assembly at Senlis; the second
order protested; its voice was stifled, and the plan of procuration
accepted. An account of the proceedings was made out and sent to the
king, by whose command copies were immediately transmitted to the
intendants of the kingdom with orders to instruct the archbishops
to do the same in like cases.[135] As for the choice of deputies,
that was to be made without any appearance or direct proof of royal
intervention. But the names of the deputies show the pressure that
must have been brought to bear by the court. M. Gérin quotes here a
number of documents in which the royal interference is manifest. Thus
Colbert writes to the Archbishop of Rouen:
"FONTAINEBLEAU, Sept. 21, 1681.
"The king, being persuaded that the Bishop of Lisieux can be of
more use in the next assembly than any other of your suffragans,
his majesty has ordered me to write you that you will please have
him chosen," etc.
From page 115 to 153 M. Gérin demonstrates this pressure
unanswerably; and from page 153 to page 261, he shows from the
character of the persons chosen, the nature of the assembly, and its
obsequiousness to the sovereign. On page 260 he asks,
"Why were not seen there Mascaron, Fléchier, Bourdaloue, Fénélon,
Huet, Mabillon, Thomassin, Rancé, Tronson, Brisacier, Tiberge, La
Salle, La Chétardie, and so many others, still more glorious in
the sight of God than in that of men?... Cease then from saying
that the assembly of 1682 was the _élite_ of the clergy of the
day!"
One of the most interesting features connected with the history of
the assembly is the new phase put upon the part acted in it by the
famous Bishop of Meaux--Bossuet. His position here contradicts what
we have seen him do in the year 1663. But from all the documents M.
Gérin brings forward, it is evident that he was drawn in against his
will. In one place he writes:
"The assembly is about to be held; and they desire not only that
I should be present, but that I should preach the introductory
sermon." (Letter to the Abbé de Rancé.)
Fleury in his notes says,
"It was the will of the king that the Bishop of Meaux should be
present."
It is true that the articles were drawn up by him; but it was because
he saw that extreme opinions were about to prevail, to prevent which
he took the propositions into his hands, and did the best he could
under the circumstances. This, however, does not excuse him entirely;
for there are times in which we should be ready to suffer for the
cause of truth, and if necessary even to give our lives. The fault of
Bossuet was, that he was weak, and could not resolve to forfeit royal
favor for the glory of suffering in a just cause. After a careful
and thorough perusal of the chapter on Bossuet and the assembly,
it is impossible to come to any milder conclusion than this. The
articles were drawn up and passed by the assembly. It is not our
purpose to go into an examination of these articles. It will suffice
to state that their aim was to limit that fulness of power belonging
to the sovereign pontiff which we have seen implied in the definition
of the Council of Florence, without seeming to do or say any thing
that could be noted as heretical or schismatical; and in the third
article there is an indorsement of the decrees of the fourth and
fifth Council of Constance, which it is well known were never
approved by the sovereign pontiff, and have therefore no authority.
These decrees proclaim the superiority of a general council of
bishops over the pope, and strike a direct blow at his infallibility
and supremacy. They were the very decrees that caused the decision of
the Council of Florence, though the occasion of the definition was
the union of the Greek and Latin churches. How were these articles
received? On the 19th of March they were adopted by the assembly. On
the 11th of April, Innocent XI. censured them in his brief. Louis
XIV. was so much impressed by this act of the pope that he prevented
the bishops of the assembly from sending a circular to the prelates
of the kingdom, by way of protest. On the 9th of May, he suspended
the sessions of the assembly; and on the 29th of June, he sent orders
for its immediate dissolution, without allowing it to go through with
the rest of its programme. Count de Maistre says of him, "He broke up
the assembly unceremoniously, with so much wisdom and fitness, that
one almost pardons him for having called it together."[136] He did
not even allow the minutes of the sessions to be put in the archives
of the clergy.[137] M. Gérin tells us that the people were opposed
to this assembly from the outset; and when the members were about to
depart, the following epigram sped them on their way,
"Prélats, abbés, séparez-vous;
Laissez un peu Rome et l'Eglise!
Un chacun se moque de vous,
Et toute la cour vous méprise.
Ma foi! l'on vous ferait, avant qu'il fût un an,
Signer à l'Alcoran."
The ministers of the king were very much irritated; they dared not
then, as they did in 1688, appeal to a general council, because
this would bring upon them the censures of the bull _Execrabilis_
of Pius II. It was determined, therefore, by the king to permit the
_procureur-général_ to make a protest privately, in the hands of the
_greffier_ or keeper of the archives of the parliament, without the
knowledge even of the first president. In the mean while the clergy,
far from acquiescing in the decrees of a body which had falsely
assumed to represent them, were giving evidence in a marked manner of
their disapprobation. Like all those who try to compromise between
right and wrong, between the service of God and the good-will of the
world, the framers of the four articles had become unacceptable to
both.
"A Dio Spiacenti ed ai nemici sui."
The parliament protested because the prelates had not gone far
enough; the _procureur-général_, De Harlay, put in a formal
declaration on this subject, and it was registered by permission of
the king. But these men were not the clergy, not the people. M. Gérin
gives us witnesses who testify to what these thought and said. The
first is one above suspicion, a man favorable to the court, the Abbé
Le Gendre; he says,
"At first the declaration of the clergy was by no means applauded.
Far from doing so, many attributed it to cowardice, saying that
it was the effect of the servile obedience of the bishops to the
will of the court. Others thought it was neither prudent nor
honorable to rise with levity against the pretensions of the pope,
at a moment when he was risking every thing to sustain theirs.
This movement of opposition, which was almost general, gave birth
to spicy writing, in which Mgr. De Harlay was the most ill-used,
as he was regarded as the first inciter, and almost as the only
author of all that was done in the assembly."
The edict of the 30th of March ordered that the four articles
should be registered in all the universities, and be taught by all
the professors. If this doctrine, remarks M. Gérin, had been but
generally received, it would have been hailed with rejoicing. What
happened? It was opposed by the most numerous, the most learned,
and the most pious portion of the clergy. The faculty of Paris was
composed of seven hundred and fifty-three members, as appears from
the MSS. Colbert, Mél. t. vii. Of these, one hundred and sixty-nine
belonged to the Sorbonne. The "_Plan for Reforming the Faculty_," in
1683, (Pap. Harlay,) says,
"The house of Sorbonne, with the exception of six or seven, have
been educated in sentiments contrary to the declaration. The
professors, the syndic excepted, are so opposed to it that those
even who are paid by the king have not been willing to teach any
of the propositions presented to his majesty in 1663, etc.... The
principal of the College of Plessis, and those whom he employs and
protects, in his college and out of it, are absolutely one with
those of Sorbonne."
As to the College of Navarre, the MSS. Colbert, t. 155, tell us that
its principal, Professor Guyard, was entirely devoted to Rome, etc.,
and others prominent, Saussay, Ligny, Vinot, were of like opinion.
In 1682, none of the professors except Doctor Lefèvre taught the
maxims of the kingdom.[138]
Of St. Sulpice, St. Nicolas de Chardonnet, and the Missions
Etrangères, we read,
"Those of St. Sulpice, of St. Nicolas de Chardonnet, and of the
Missions Etrangères, who have given their opinion in this affair,
(of the four articles,) hold the same views as those of Sorbonne."
Of the religious orders and communities, it was written in 1663,
"Nothing can be hoped for of the Carmelites, Augustinians, and
Franciscans, who make profession of favoring his holiness in every
thing," etc.
The parliament, therefore, and the grand council had, by an abuse of
power, decided that _each one_ of the mendicant orders should have
but _two votes_ in the faculty, so that thirty-four Franciscans,
thirty-eight Dominicans, thirty-three Augustinians, and nineteen
Carmelites had only eight votes in the faculty.
"Forty-three Cistercians and six canons regular, who are all for
Rome, are to be treated as the above friars."
That, besides being the most numerous, the opponents of the articles
were the most learned, is evident from the details we have given;
all the professors of Sorbonne, with the exception of Pirot, all the
professors of Navarre, except one, Lefèvre, taught the ultramontane
opinions. The MSS. Colbert prove this also beyond the possibility of
doubt.
That the opponents of the declaration were also men most remarkable
for their piety, is acknowledged by those who were engaged in giving
information to Colbert.
To show the exactness of the facts given us here, M. Gérin quotes the
words of a famous anonymous book, _La Tradition des Faits_, that
appeared in 1760, by the Gallican Abbé Chauvelin, clerical counsellor
to the parliament of Paris. The abbé writes,
"When it was resolved to oblige the ecclesiastics to profess
the maxims of France, what difficulties stood in the way? It
was necessary to extort from many of them their consent. Others
opposed obstacles which all the authority of the parliament could
only with difficulty remove. It became necessary to use all the
zeal and light of several prelates, and of several doctors, who
were favorable to the true teaching, to bring back the great
number of ultramontanes in the French clergy.... The ecclesiastics
did not cease from resistance until the parliament used its
authority to restrain them.... The university and the faculty
of law submitted without difficulty, _but they were obliged to
proceed by way of authority to make the faculty of theology obey_."
The facts given above, the testimony of witnesses above suspicion,
of those whose interest it would have been to conceal what they
say, the action of the parliament, and the petty ways adopted to
coerce the professors, v. g., withholding their pay,[139] all evince
that the maxims known as Gallican were forced upon the clergy and
people of France. But not only is this the case, but so fully were
the king and the bishops themselves convinced of their falsity that
they retracted them. Before showing this, we will add a curious and
precious document from the hands of the wily Achille de Harlay,
_procureur-général_, addressed to Colbert on the 2d of June, 1682.
After saying that the proposed visit of the parliament to the faculty
would have been unfortunate, because it would have revealed to Rome
the divergence between the latter and the government, he goes on
to add that "of the assembly of the clergy, the greater part would
change to-morrow, and willingly, if they were allowed to do so."[140]
The act of the assembly, as we have seen, drew from the sovereign
pontiff an authoritative censure. This was not all; the pope refused
the bulls of consecration for those who had taken part in it, unless
they made their formal submission to his decision. The king, who at
heart was a sincere Catholic, opened his eyes to the danger of the
church. As we have said, he withheld the minutes of the proceedings
in the first instance, although he allowed a private protest to be
made. Later he revoked his decree ordering the doctrine of the four
articles to be taught in the French schools. Page 454 has a letter of
Louis to the sovereign pontiff, in which he informs his holiness of
this, September 14th, 1693. A posthumous work of Daguesseau[141] says,
"This letter of Louis XIV. to Pope Innocent was the seal put
upon the accommodation between the court of Rome and the clergy
of France; and conformably to the engagement it contained, his
majesty did not any longer enforce the observation of the edict
of March, 1682, which obliged all who wished to obtain degrees to
sustain the declaration of the clergy made that year with regard
to ecclesiastical authority; ceasing thus to impose, on this
point, the obligation existing, while the edict was in force,
and leaving for the future, as before the edict, full liberty to
sustain the doctrine."
L'Abbé de Pradt, in his work, _Les Quatre Concordats_, speaks of the
letter of Louis XIV., and says that Pius VII. had it with him--"an
old scrap of paper," as Napoleon expressed it--and wished the emperor
to sign it. This, however, Napoleon declined to do, until he could
consult his theologians. On their advice he refused to sign it. He
did more. The abbé says,
"When the archives of Rome were brought to Paris, Napoleon went
one day to the Hôtel de Soubise, in which they were kept. There
he obtained the letter of Louis XIV. He took it with him, and,
on his return to the Tuileries, threw it into the fire, saying,
'We'll not be troubled hereafter with these ashes.'"
Montholon tells us in his _Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire de
France_, that Napoleon dictated to him these words concerning the
book of the Abbé de Pradt,
"'This work is not a libel: if it contains some erroneous
ideas, it contains a great number which are sound and worthy
of meditation.' He afterward dictated six notes upon different
points contained in the work; he takes notice in them of all that
appeared to him deserving of censure; but he has not a single word
to say against the story of the destruction by himself of the
letter of Louis XIV."[142]
With regard to the bishops who had taken part in the declaration,
they had the good sense and virtue to submit to him whom Christ has
named his vicar and the pastor of pastors. On the 14th of September,
each one of them wrote to Innocent XII. in the following terms,
"Prostrate at the feet of your holiness, we profess and declare
that we grieve deeply from our heart, and beyond what we can
express, on account of what has been done in the assembly, so
greatly offensive to your holiness and your predecessors; and
therefore whatever may have been deemed (_censeri potuit_) decreed
against ecclesiastical power and pontifical authority, we hold,
and declare that all should hold it, as not decreed. Moreover, we
hold as not determined on whatever may have been deemed (_censeri
potuit_) determined on in prejudice of the rights of churches;
for our intention was not to decree any thing nor to do any thing
prejudicial to the said churches."
The following passages from MSS. and works of the day add
confirmation to this letter.
A memoir on the liberties of the Gallican Church, composed by order
of "Monseigneur Louis, Dauphin de France, Duc de Bourgoyne, mort en
1710," says,
"This court (Rome) continues always what it has begun, and often
obliges us to retract or alter what we have judiciously and
necessarily done against her. Nothing proves this better than the
history of the assembly of 1682."
Adrien Baillet, writing his _Démêlé de Philippe le Bel avec Boniface
VIII._, tells us,
"In the first variance, (between Philip and Boniface,) it was the
court of Rome that gave satisfaction to that of France; in the
second, (of the assembly,) it is the court of France that has just
rendered satisfaction to that of Rome."
Bayle, _Dictionnaire_, art. "Braunbom," writes,
"France was so far from having broken with the pope, from the year
1690 to the year 1701, that she became, on the contrary, more
papist. It is known, moreover, that Innocent XII. gained the day,
in having things put again on their old footing in 1693."
We have tried to give the substance of M. Gérin's work. We feel that
we have given but a meagre idea of it. Still, this much is evident
from what we have written, that the doctrine known as Gallican was
not the doctrine of the French clergy. That it afterward became so,
in great part was owing undoubtedly to the influence of the assembly
of 1682, and of those who in high positions lent their aid to its
propagation among the rising generation of students. They, early
imbued with these maxims, were far less to blame than the men who
first broached such principles. Let us hope that the comparatively
few who hold to these opinions, seeing the origin of what they
profess, will understand the worthlessness of them, and unite with
the universal church in professing belief in the infallibility of the
See of Peter.
FOOTNOTES:
[128] _Recherches Historiques sur l'Assemblée du Clergè de France de
1682._ Par Charles Gérin, Juge au Tribunal Civil de la Seine. Paris:
Le Coffre. 1869.
[129] There is in a secret report made to Colbert, "Memoir regarding
what passed in the faculty with respect to the thesis," a curious
account, hitherto unknown, of these debates.--MSS. _Cinq Cents,
Colbert,_ vol. 153.
[130] Afterward Bishop of Meaux.
[131] Bossuet's master.
[132] Bib. Imp.--MS. Sorbonne, 1258.
[133] _Procès Verbaux du Clergé_, l. v. p. 377, sq.
[134] MSS. 9517 fr. Bibl. Imp.
[135] P. 128. The letter conveying the orders is given in full.
[136] _De l'Eglise Gallicane_, t. ii. c. xi.
[137] _Procès Verbaux_, t. v.
[138] _Projet du Réforme_, Pap. De Harlay.
[139] P. 376, from MS. letters 10,265. Bibl. Imp. fr.
[140] Bibl. Imp. MSS. Harlay, 367, vol. v. p. 145.
[141] Vol. xiii. p. 423.
[142] Montholon, _Mémoires_, vol. i. p. 113. Paris, 1823.
PUTNAM'S DEFENCE.
Our readers will remember, we presume, that _Putnam's Magazine_ for
July last contained an article which attracted some attention, under
the title of "Our Established Church," and to which we replied in our
number for the August following; the same magazine for last month, in
an article entitled "The Unestablished Church," comes out with its
defence, of which we should be uncivil not to take some notice.
The July article, written in an unsuccessful vein of irony, was
directed against the honor both of the church and the city and State
of New York, and was designed to show that the church, grasping
at wealth and power, and skilfully availing herself of political
passions and party divisions, had obtained from the State and
city governments endowments for herself and subventions for her
educational and charitable institutions out of all proportion to
any granted to similar Protestant institutions. We replied that the
endowments are imaginary, for the church here is unendowed; that the
subventions are greatly exaggerated; that several alleged had never
been made, while others said to have been made to Catholic were in
fact made to Protestant institutions; and that Catholics had never
received a tithe of what was requisite to place them on an equality
in regard to subventions from the public with non-Catholics. The
_Magazine_, though with exceeding ill grace, concedes nearly all
that we denied, abandons its assumption that ours is the established
church, confesses that it is unestablished, and disputes us, except
with sneers and exclamation-points, only in regard to two statements
in our reply, one of which is of no importance, and the other is one
in which it is decidedly, not to say maliciously wrong.
The two points disputed we proceed to dispose of. The _Magazine_
charged the corporation of the city with granting leases of valuable
sites for Catholic institutions for a long term of years at a merely
nominal rent. We replied that only one such lease had been granted
since 1847, which is not technically exact, and we overlooked the
fact that the lease for the site of the Catholic Orphan Asylum
between Fifty-first and Fifty-second streets bears the date of 1857;
but by the _Magazine's_ own showing, though technically a new lease,
and so recorded, it was really only a change in the tenure of the old
lease. Catholics had held and occupied the site under a lease from
the city, and at the same rent as now, for years before 1847. So much
for the first point.
The _Magazine_ charged that the State paid out, in 1866, for
benefactions under religious control $129,025.14, of which
$124,174.14 went to the religious purposes of the Catholic Church.
Not being able to find any proof of this, and regarding the
unsupported statement of the writer as presumptive evidence of
falsehood rather than of truth, we let the charge pass without any
attempt at a specific refutation. The _Magazine_ reiterates the
statement, and refers to the report of the comptroller of the State.
We have the comptroller's report before us; we have examined and
reëxamined it; but we do not find the statement in it or any thing to
warrant it; and it has been more than once pronounced on the highest
authority, and proved to be a forgery, as the _Magazine_ well knows
or is inexcusable for not knowing.
We did not meet this statement for the first time in _Putnam's
Magazine_. It had been previously made, and we supposed sufficiently
refuted in the journals, especially in the _Utica Herald_, whose
editor, Mr. Roberts, had been a member of the Legislature and of the
committee of ways and means in 1866. Mr. Roberts under his own name,
pronounced it a forgery. For honest and fair-minded men this was
conclusive. But the charge was embodied in an anonymous memorial, and
laid on the desks of the members of the New York State Convention,
held in 1867 and 1868, and was again pronounced in open debate a
forgery, without a single voice being raised in its defence. The
Hon. Mr. Cassidy, of the Albany _Atlas and Argus_, declared it false
from beginning to end. The Hon. Mr. Alvord, the distinguished member
from Onondaga County, did the same. The Hon. Erastus Brooks, member
of the Convention from Richmond, and one of the editors of the New
York _Evening Express_, would not go quite so far, but regarded it
as an admirable example of one of the many ways of telling a lie.
He exposed its disingenuous character, by showing that the $8000
stated in it to be appropriated to St. Mary's Hospital, Rochester,
was expressly declared in the statute making the appropriation to be
for the support of soldiers under the supervision of Dr. Backus, the
surgeon of the post. The soldiers were supported and taken care of in
St. Mary's Hospital, as the only proper place, in the judgment of the
military authorities, that could be obtained. Mr. Brooks also gave,
as another instance of the disingenuousness of the statement, its
omission to count $25,000, appropriated to a Protestant institution
in Elmira, we suppose for a similar purpose. Mr. Alvord not only
pronounced it false from beginning to end, but, statute in hand,
showed from the act of the Legislature itself, which he read, that
instead of appropriating for charitable purposes nearly $130,000, it
appropriated only $80,000, to be divided among the several counties
according to their assessed valuation.[143] What has become of our
friend, the Rev. Leonard W. Bacon, who sometimes writes for _Putnam_,
and who has such delicate scruples about Protestants using forged
documents against Catholics?
So much has been said about the partiality of the Legislature to the
Catholic Church that it may be well to look at the conditions on
which it grants and distributes its aid to charitable institutions.
The act of 1866, so bitterly denounced, appropriates from the State
treasury $80,000 for orphan asylums, to be apportioned to the several
counties according to their assessed value, and distributed to the
several asylums according to the number of inmates received and
cared for in them respectively, without the slightest reference to
the fact whether they were Catholic or Protestant. Nothing could be
fairer, and if Catholic asylums received more of the benefaction than
those under the charge of non-Catholics, it was simply because they
received and cared for a larger number of orphans. We see no ground
of complaint here against either the Legislature or the church. It
is very possible that Catholics have a larger number of orphans in
proportion to their population than have non-Catholics, and it is
not unlikely, also, that they are more ready to make sacrifices for
their support.
In the list of benefactions of the State to Catholic institutions
in 1866, the _Magazine_ places the item of $78,000 to the Catholic
Protectory. This was a special grant to enable the society to
purchase a site and erect suitable buildings for its purpose. This
protectory corresponds very nearly to the Protestant societies for
the protection and reformation of juvenile delinquents, and which the
State is accustomed to aid by its benefactions. The appropriations
for its support are justified on the ground that it is of great
public utility and protection of the public from a class of destitute
children not unlikely, if not taken care of, to grow up vicious and
criminal, to fill our alms-houses, our jails and penitentiaries. The
community at large, rather than the church specially, is benefited,
and there is no good reason why grants for its support should be
objected to or regarded as made for special Catholic purposes.
The only thing that a Protestant can object to, if any charitable
institution is to receive aid from the State, is, that by aiding a
Catholic protectorate to take care of and reform destitute children
of Catholics without the loss of their Catholic faith, it so far
fails to aid Protestants to bring them up in Protestantism, or, what
is perhaps worse, in no religion.
As a matter of course, _Putnam's Magazine_ dwells on the public
grants to certain Catholic schools in this city. We do not deny those
grants. We conceded and defended them in our former article, and the
_Magazine_ has in no respect invalidated our defence; it has only
stared and sneered at it. Give us either schools to which we can send
our children, or divide the schools equitably between Catholics and
Protestants, and we will solicit no special grants of the sort. As
it is, neither the city nor the State gives back by way of subvention
to our schools more than a pittance of what it takes from us for the
support of schools to which we cannot with our Catholic conscience
send our children. If the State taxes the whole community alike for
the support of public schools, it is bound to provide schools for
Catholics as well as Protestants, and for both such as leave the
conscience of each free, sacred, and inviolable. If it refuses to do
so, the least that it can do is to make liberal grants to the schools
Catholics are obliged to establish for themselves.