turcs, dignities, and other ecclesiastical benefices and offices, whatsoever they may be, shall lie made accord- ing to the institutions of common law, of tlic councils, and of our ancient fathers. (5.) We renew and ap- prove of the liberties, franchises, prerogatives, and privileges granted by the kings our predecessors, and bj' ourselves, to churches, monasteries, and other places of piety, as well as to ecclesiastical persons, ((i.) We prohibit any one from in any manner levj'ing and collecting the pecuniary exactions and heavy charges which the court of Rome has imposed, or may hereaf- ter impose, upon the Church of our kingdom, and by which it has been miserabh" impoverished — unless it be for a reasonable and very urgent cause, or bj' inev- itable necessity, and with the free and express consent of tlie king and of the Church. See Ordonnances des Roys de France de la troisicme race recuilUes par M. de Lduri'ere (Paris, 1723, folio), i, 97. In the Latin text, "the chief points are: statuimus et ordina- mus primo ut ecclesiarum regni nostri praslati, pa- troni, et beneficiorum coUatores ordinarii jus suum plenarium habeant, et unicuique sua jurisdictio debite servetur. II. Item ecclesias cathedrales et aliaj regni nostri liberas electiones et earum effectum integraliter haljeant. — V. Item exactiones et onera gravissima pe- cuniarum per Curiam Romanam ecclesite regni nostri impositas vel imposita, cjuibus regnum nostrum miser- abiliter depauperatum extitit, sive etiam imponendas vel imponenda, levari aut coliigi nullatenus volumus, nisi duntaxat pro rationabili, pia et urgentissima causa, et inevitabili necessitate, ac de spontaneo et expresso consensu iiostro et ipsius ecclesire regni nostri. The conclusion: Harum tenore universis justitiariis, offi- ciariis et suliditis nostris — mandamus, quatenus om- nia et singula proedicta diligenter et attente servent — atque servari — in viola biliter faciant: nee aliquid in contrarium quovis modo faciant vel attentent, sen fieri vel attentari permittant : transgressores aut contra fa- cientes — tali pana plectendo, quod cieteris deinceps cedat in cxem]ilum. The genuineness of this docu- ment, which is questioned chiefly by P. Daniel, is shown by E. Richer, Hist, concil. r/fneral, lib. iii, p. 189 ; Lihertes de I'/ff'tse Gallicane, edit. ami. 1771, t. iii, p. 633, GC7 ; Velly, Hist.de France, t. iii, p. 239" (Giese- ler. Church Iliston/, pei\ iii, § G2).
The "liberties" of the Gallican Church, according to Bossuet, were substantially set forth in these ordi- nances. The Gallican spirit was also strongly shown in the disputes lietween Philip le Bel and Boniface VIII towards the end of the 13th century, whirli dis- putes culminated in the bull Unam Sunctain, and in the abduction and death of the pope, A.D. 1308. See Bon- iface VIII. The questions involved in these dis- putes were vital ones : the authority of the pope in temporals, the royal prerogative, and the power of the episcopac}' as related to the supremacy of the pope. The Gallican writers vindicated the rights of the Church and the supremacy of councils over the pope with brilliant talents and solid learning. The Roman writers nevertheless maintained the papal claims un- waveringly, but with little success, in France. In 1455 the bishop of Nantes undertook to appeal from a royal ordinance to the pope, but the Parliament of Paris decided that he had violated the privileges of the Frencli Church, as well as the fundamental laws of tlie kingdom. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bour- ges, called the " great bulwark of the Gallican Church against Rome," was adopted at the Synod of Bour- ges in 1438, and confirmed by the Parliament July 13, 1439. It involved two great principles: 1. That the jiope has no authorit}' in the kingdom of France over anything concerning temporals. 2. That, though the pope is acknowledged as sovereign lord in spir- ituals, his power even in these is restricted awl con- trolled bj- the canons and regulations of the ancient councils of the Church received in the kingdom. (For details, see Bourges, Pragmatic Sanction
GALLICAN CHURCH
725
GALLICAX CHURCH
OF.) Louis XI himself strongly repressed all ultra- montane reaction against the decisions of th;; French assemblies, or against the immunities of the nation- al church. The ultramontanists obtained a tempora- ry success in the revocation of the Pragmatic Sanc- tion of Bourges in 151-2 by tlie Council of Lateran, with the renunciation of it Ity Francis I (lolO), with the understanding that his concordat with Leo X se- cured to him its substantial benefits. This act was instigated b}' certain private aims of the king's, and by the hope of his chancellor, Duprat, obtaining the dignity of cardinal. But this revocation gave rise to a long resistance bj' the Parliament and the Sorbonne, and to great anger and even turbulence of spirit among the French people. The effects of the revocation were practicallj' insignificant, and Gallicanism only showed itself the more energetic and active afterwards. The Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges was, it is true, abroga- tsd, but the fundamental principles established at the councils of Pisa, Constance, and Basle, which inspired that sanction, remained intact as a guide for the opin- ions of the nation and of the clergy, while the antipa- thy of the Parliaments against ultramontanism be- came still more deeply rooted. The decrees of the Council of Trent (1545-1G63) were, indeed, intended to supplant and supersede those of the earlier councils, but from among them France admitted only such as agreed with her own policy, with the privileges of the king, and with the customs and usages of her Churcli. Gallicanism was greatl}' advanced, in fact, by the is- sues of tile Council of Trent, and by the discussions to Aviiich they gave rise. The numerous writings of Pi- thou (q. V. ; f 1596) on the canon law gave true scien- tific and ecclesiastical expression to the tenets of Gal- licanism. What Pithou advances in behalf of the Galilean Church in his Corpus Juris Canonici, in his Codi'X Canonum, and in his GaUicie Ecclesi'.e in schis- mate status, were b}'- him collected in cightj'-three ar- ticles, in 1591, in the Liberies de Veglise gallicane (1633, 2 vols, fol.), Ijy the aid of which it became eas}'' both for the laity and the clergj^ to see how far the questions involved were questions of order and organization, and how little they applied to religion or dogmas. Pithou himself condensed the eighty-three articles into two: (1.) That the pope has no right of interference with the king's prerogative in temporals ; (2.) That he cannot enforce a decision in spirituals in contradiction with those of the councils received in the kingdom. Ultra- montanism, however, continued to assert its claims with tlie usual persistence of Rome. Cardinal Duper- ron, and the two succeeding cardinals and prime min- isters of Louis XIII and Louis XIV^, Kiehelieu and Mazarin, maintained the Concordat. But, in spite of the Concordat, the Sorbonne presented the six celebra- ted DecLiraliones following to the king, jMa}^ 8, 1663 : 1. Tiie pope has no authority over the king's temporal power. 2. In temporals the king has no superior but God. 3. The sulijecis of the king cannot be released from their fealty and obedience under any pretexts whatsoever. 4. It is inconsistent with the king's pre- rogative, and with the freedom of the Galilean Church, tliat tiic pope should depose bishops contrary to the decrees of councils. 5. It is not the doctrine of the Church that the pope is superior to general councils. G. It is not matter of dogma that the pope is infallible, apart from the concurrence of the Church.