Innocent XI (cardinal Benedetto Odesculcht), born at Como in 1611, succeeded Clement X in 167(5. It is said by some that lie was a soldier in his younger days, though this has been denied by others (Count Torre Kezzonico, I)e Suppositis Militaribus Stipendiis Bene- detto Odescalchi). He was a man of great firmness and courage, austere in his morals, and inflexible in his res- olutions, and withal one of the most distinguished popes of the 17th century. He inaugurated many reforms, reduced very materially the pomp and luxury of the papal court, and suppressed various abuses. His ad- ministration was entirely free from the weakness of nepotism which had so greatly sullied the fame of many of the pontiffs who had prececled him. His own nephe^v he obliged to live at Rome, under his pontificate, in a private character ; and in this respect, certainly, he has had few equals in the pontifical chair. Indeed, liis aus- •terity was so great that it made him many enemies, and oftentimes estranged even some who would gladly have offered him their friendship. His greatest ene- mies, no doubt, were the Jesuitical order, which he was determined to crush out. The principal event of his pontificate, however, was his quarrel with the imperious Louis XIV of France, particularlj"^ provoked by the question of the immunities enjoyed by the foreign am- bassadors at Rome, an event which exhibits more clear- ly than any other act of his both his own character and that of the times, and deserves a few words of explanation. By an old usage or prescription, the for- eign ambassadors at Rome had the right of asylum, not only in their vast palaces, but also in a certain district or boundary around them, including sometimes a whole street or square, which the oflScers of justice or police could not enter, and where, consequently, malefactors and dissolute persons found a ready shelter. These " quartieri," or free districts, were likewise places for the sale of contraband articles and for defrauding the reve- nu2. The abuse had become contagious : several of the Roman princes and cardinals claimed and enforced the same rights and immunities, so that only a small part of th3 city was left under the sway of the magistrates. The classical advocates for this absurd custom quoted the example of Romulus, who made his new town a refuge for all the lawless persons of the neighborhood. Innocent determined to put a stop to the abuse, and to be master in his own capital ; he, however, proceeded at first calmly and with sufficient caution. lie would not disturb the present possessors of those immunities, but he declared and made it officially known that in future he would not give audience to any new ambassador who did not renounce for himself and his successors these abusive claims. All the great powers of Europe took umbrage at this very reasonable determination; but the question was not brought to a crisis until the death of the marechal d'Estrees, the French ambassa- dor at Rome. Just before Louis XIV had apjjointed the new ambassador, the pope repeated in a bull, dated May, 1687, his previous resolve. In view of this action of the pope, which Louis was determined not to observe, he instructed his minister " to maintain at Rome the rights and the dignity of France;" and in order to sup- port this resolve, he gave him a numerous retinue of military and naval officers, who were to frighten the pope in his own capital. La\-ardin's entrance into Rome under such an escort resembled that of a hostile commander. He had also been preceded by several hundred French under-officers, who had entered Rome as private travellers, but \vho took their quarters near the ambassador's palace, ready for any mischief. Inno- ctut. however, remained firm , he refused to receive the
new ambassador, and all the anger of Louis, who seized upon Avignon, and threatened to send a fleet with troops on the Roman coast, had no effect upon him. Lavar- din, having remained eighteen inonths at Rome, unable to see the pope, was obliged to return to France with his credentials unopened. The quarrel was not adjust- ed till the following pontificate ; but the distinct immu- nities of the foreign ambassadors at Rome continued, after various modifications, until the beginning of the 19th century. This quarrel was, however, not the ini- tiative to a misimderstanding between the two sover- eigns. It had been previously opened by the right which Louis XIV claimed to possess, in virtue of the Di-oit de Rerpie, to appoint to vacant benefices in his kingdom, and to collect the revenues. This right of the French king Innocent XI disputed. Louis XIV issued edict alter edict, the ])ope buU after bull against them ; finally, the French clergy demanded that a coun- cil shoiUd be assemljled. This was done, and on Feb. 3, 1682, the council declared that the French clergy in- dorsed the action of the king, and that the pope should be notified of their decision. While awaiting his an- swer, the assembly continued its sittings, intending to put an end to all further papal encroachments by estab- lishing firmly the doctrines of the Galilean Church con- cerning the temporal power of the popes, their infalli- bility, and the independence of the king. The result of their deliberation was the famous four propositions promulgated IMarch 16, 1682. See Gallican Church. Innocent XI, in a solemn consistory, condemned the propositions and the bishops who had voted them, and April 11, 1682, issued a brief annulling the proceedings of the French council. In 1G86 he also condemned the doctrines of Molinos (q. v.), who was obliged to make a public recantation, Septembers, 1687, besides suffering for the remainder of his life close confinement in the prisons of the Inquisition. At the close of 1676 Inno- cent took a threatening attitude towards the Jesuits, forbidding them, among other things, to receive any novices into their order. They retorted by calling the pope a Jansenist, offered prayers for his conversion, and entered into an alliance with the French king. Innocent XI, however, died only a few years after, August 21, 1689. It was during his pontificate that James II of England became a Romanist, and endeavored, by a suc- cession of bold attempts, not only to give Romanism tol- eration, but even make it a Church establishment of his country. (Compare Fox, James IT, p. 332 ; Hallam, Constit. liist. ii, 212; Mackintosh, Hist, of Berol/i/ion, ch. v; fitoui^hton, A'rcles. Hist, of England [Lond. 1«70, 2 vols. 8vo], vol. ii, chap, viii.) Stoughton claims that these efforts accorded, however, only " with the daring policy of the Jesuits, who were masters at court, but not with the more cautious measures of the papacy." No doubt J;his is true in a measure. Innocent XI was evi- dently unwilling to become master of the English eccle- siastical establishment if to be secured by the aid of an order which he abhorred, and which he was determined upon extinguishing ; and this our supposition is strength- ened by the demand which James II made upon Rome for a red hat for a Jesuit named Petre. See Jajies II. Two letters of this pope are published by Ughelli, Italia Sacra, iv, 513 ; x, 53. He wrote also Breve ad Fran- citcuni episcoprnn Apamiensem (Paris, 4to) : — Decretum de s(ier(p rntiiniiniidiii': ii.sii datum (Paris, 1679, 4to). See Palatius. i;/. /imor, n'ius XI, in the 5th vol. of the Gest. l'<mtif. Rom. ritii ,r/in>or,'nzo XI (Venet. 1690) ; Bruys, Hist, des Popes, v, iiCO; Sismondi, Hist, des Francois, xxv, 311 ; J. A. Costa ( 1!. Siinon), Hist, de VOrifme des Rerenus ecclesiastirpies (Francfort, 16x4, 12mo) ; De Lar- r(i((iie. \n,ir.,,„ Tnili: d, hi Her/ale (1685, 12mo) ; Bayle, Xni,r.l/,.< ,1, 1,1 Hrpuhr,.,,,,- ,/..v i.eHres (1686) ; Heidegger, llhioriii r,ip(iiii.< (Anl^r. ICltX, 4to), pt. ii; De La Lu- zerne, Sur la Declaration de VassemhUe du clerge de France en 1682 (Par, 1821, 8vo) ; F. Buonamici, De Vita et Rebtis gestis Imwcenfii XI (Rome, 1776, 8vo ) ; Herzog, Real-Encyklop, vi, G75 ; Hoefer, Nouv. Biofjr. Generak,