Every phase of the history of the Church in Canada is interesting. A comprehensive account of it has yet to be written. Few countries offer a richer field for a study of singular and unique developments in the history of Catholicism. A web of valuable material awaits the historian who wishes to unravel the wealth of information on the many phases of that country's religious history. Of these, one of the most fascinating, is the relation of the Church to the State in early Quebec-the nucleus of the Church in North America.

Due to its social and moral solidarity the French Canadian population was religiously plastic in its formative years. The conservatism and traditionalism of the people rendered them docile to the unquestionable authority of the Church. There was an uniformity of language and an uniformity of occupation as well as an uniformity of religious interests. Due to these, despite the unexaggerated hardships of missionary life, the influence of the Church waxed strong until the State undertook to challenge her progress and aroused in her a jealous guardianship of her rights.

The power of the State under French rule was despotic and endeavored to offset the influences which made for the progress of the Church. To this point the influence of the latter was far reaching when we bear in mind that at this time Quebec was the dispensary of the Church in North America.

This despotism asserted itself in the germs of Gallicanism embedded in the policy of Louis XIV whose aspirations for a vast colonial empire determined that a new France should be added to the old.1

Bossuet's System of polity supporting the theory of Divine Right of Kings shaped the destinies of this despotism. Louis XIV aimed to enforce the Gallican Liberties. These had found expression in the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (1438). Fortunately this arbitrary measure was abolished by Leo X and Francis I but its spirit continued for a long time to ferment in France

1 PARKMAN, The Old Régime in Canada, p. 239, Boston, 1910.

Richelieu

through the channels of Jansenism and of Calvinism. and Mazarin were the ready servants of the King's wishes. Richelieu wished to enlist the services of the Church to accomplish his economic policy in which New France was to have her part.

The champions of Gallicanism to-day are few, but in the colonial period of our history they exerted no little influence. At that time Gallicanism reverberated throughout the domain of Christendom. It is not illogical it should endeavor to operate in North America through the medium of New France.

The term Gallicanism was applied to a certain group of religious opinions peculiar to the Church of France. These were in opposition to the ideas which were called in France "Ultramontane" and tended chiefly to a restraint of the Pope's authority in the Church in favor of that of the bishops and the temporal ruler. The most accredited partisans of Gallican ideas did not contest the Pope's Primacy in the Church and never claimed for their ideas the force of articles of faith. Their way of regarding the authority of the Pope seemed to them more in conformity with holy Scripture and Tradition. As they regarded their theory, it did not transgress the limits of free opinion which any theological school may choose provided the Catholic symbol be duly accepted.2

The royal power in France gradually became supreme over every department of national life. Then the kings in their turn baffled with the Pope in a quarrel, which could not fail in the end to minister to their own greatness. We see it in Francis I, the Valois Kings, Richelieu and Mazarin. The very orthodoxy of the Kings themselves and of their government made them jealous of all exercise of authority in their dominions by another sovereign, even though he was the Pope."

In 1673, Louis XIV wished to enforce the claim of the regale over the whole of France. From a money dispute between the Crown and some of the clergy arose a grave constitutional question between the Church of France and the Pope. Louis XIV readily found a champion of his cause in Bossuet. "To the orthodoxy of Sir Thomas Moore, Bossuet, Bishop of Meaux,

2 Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume VI, pp. 351-356, Art. "Gallicanism," New York, 1910. 3 WAKEMAN, H. O., Europe 1598-1715, p. 248, New York, 1898.

added the fervid eloquence of Saint Bernard and the learning and taste of Erasmus. In him the flame of patriotism burned at fever heat. Imbued with the principles of his age loyalty was to him the first of virtues, and the King dilated before his dazzled eyes, not as the grasping tyrant that he really was, but as the God-given champion of an oppressed Church. At the bidding of the King, under his leadership, the French clergy set themselves to follow up the work of the Council of Constance and put limits to the authority of the Roman Pontiff. Constitutionalism once more raised its head for a brief period within the bounds of the Roman obedience. In 1682 the King summoned an assembly of clergy to meet at S. Germain to consider the difficulty. At the instigation of Bossuet the assembly recognized the right of the King to the regale all over France, and passed four resolutions on the limits of the power of the Pope:"

1. God has not given to St. Peter and his successors any power, either direct or indirect, over temporal matters; therefore in these matters the Pope has no jurisdiction over the King or his subjects.

2.

The Gallican Church approves the decrees of the Council of Constance declaring Ecumenical councils superior to the Pope in spiritual matters, and holds them as still in force.

3. The usages and rules of the Gallican Church in the kingdom, shall remain unchanged, and it is to the glory of the Holy See that they should so remain.

4. The decisions of the Pope in questions of faith are not final until ratified by the Church.

Wakeman finds in this action an analogy to the English Reformation."

In the Church of Quebec, the King found fertile soil wherein to sow the seeds of such measures. The question of the erection of a bishopric was pending and soon became vital involving Church and State. With the action of the Holy See in June 1658, the struggle opened and grew in intensity till a grave situation was reached in the person of Louis François Duplessis de Mornay, third Bishop of Quebec. The issue of the struggle is visi

ble in the evils which befell the American Church especially in Louisiana.

THE ADMINISTRATION OF LOUIS XIV.

In Church and State we still benefit and even suffer from the after effects of the administration of Louis XIV and must still take them into account. Therefore the story of his life is not that of a prince to whom we are strange and indifferent. The mark he has left on history is too deep and significant to be forgotten.

Nevertheless his character and position are difficult to estimate when we understand the attitude of his subjects towards him during his life time, and the bias under which foreign nations viewed his aims. "The world's judgment is sharply at variance upon Louis XIV and this is true in France even more than elsewhere. While some regard him as the type of a selfish tyrant who prepared the way for the Revolution, in fact, made it inevitable, and responsible for the downfall of the monarchy; others look upon him as the sovereign, who, at the cost, it may be, of temporary distress, has left to the nation an enduring legacy of fame, splendor and power coupled with imperishable treasures of intellectual activity."

A valuable source of information is the memoirs of his reign dictated by himself with a two-fold aim-for the instruction of his son, and as an historical monument. While they cover only the first years they are the key note to an understanding of later events as far as these were determined by Louis.

In the memoirs we see him as a thinker who has learned to know his duties and his rights, not from books but decidedly from his intercourse with Mazarin, from passing events, from the study of mankind as well as from reflection upon himself and his position. Here he outlines his thoughts and motives.

The ancestors of Louis prepared the way for him-Philip Augustus, Philip the Fair, Francis I and Henry IV imparted their character and aims. These coupled with the work of Richelieu and Mazarin bore the burden of the great monarch's tasks. Louis' reign offers the most striking instance of pure mon

6 VON DOLLINGER, J. I., Studies in European History, pp. 265-66, London, 1890.

archy in the annals of history. The consciousness of royalty was developed in him to the greatest degree, he possessed the art of "playing the king." This art was equalled by his self-control. He could guage pleasure with abstinence, serious business with the amusements of the court, while tact in all matters great or small was his. He was judged the handsomest man in the kingdom. Thus his personal appearance contributed to rouse the enthusiastic admiration of the nation, a worship of his person, which reacted upon himself with intoxicating effect, and obscured the natural clearness of his judgment.

In one sense the reign of the cardinals continued even under him, since he was guided by the principles of Richelieu and Mazarin. The Cardinal Ministers guided the reins of government with skilful hands. While combining the rights and privileges of the office of cardinal with the exercise of sovereign power, they transmitted to Louis XIV a heritage enhanced by mastery over the Church.

Fenelon remarked that the King, more than the Pope, was the ruler and master of the French Church. This he lamented and sought to persuade the Roman Court into more energetic interference.'

The theories of government upon which the absolutism of Louis XIV rested received a classic expression in a celebrated book written by Bousset (1627-1704), a learned and upright bishop of the time.

8

According to Bousset, government is divinely ordained in order to enable mankind to satisfy the natural instincts of living together in organized society. Under God, monarchy is, of all forms of government, the most usual and the most ancient, and consequently the most natural. It is likewise the strongest and most efficient, therefore the best. It is analogus to the rule of a family by the father, and, like that rule, should be hereditary. Four qualities are referred by the eloquent bishop to such an hereditary monarch: 1. That he is sacred is attested by his annointing at the time of coronation by the priests of the Church

7 VON DOLLINGER, J. I., op. cit., p. 271.

8 The statements of the arguments in favor of monarchy by divine right are taken from Bossuet's famous book-La politique tirée des propres paroles de l'Ecriture Sainte.