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 œcumenical 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: