The principal source of the reputation in which the school was held, and of the influence it exercised over school, Church, and State, and particularly over theol- ogy and philosophy, is to be found in the fact that many docteurs and bucheliers of the house associated themselves with the teachers as resident guests, and joined in the harmonious and earnest pursuit of a com- mon object, thus constituting a compact society for the promotion of learning. The union of powers in the as- sociation of the Sorbonne was perfect, and the govern- ment firm. A ])roviseur had control of general and ex- ternal affairs, and regulated the intercourse with the outer world, with the universitj', and with all authori- ties. Though subordinated to the university, the pro- viseur held a position of such dignity that none vent- ured to infringe upon his rights. He was at first chosen from among the professors, but later from the number of most eminent prelates, and was consequently able to afford protection and impart lustre to the insti- tution over which he presided. Internal matters were regulated by a senieur des docteurs.
For admission to a permanent residence in the Sor- bonne it was required of a bucculaiireus urtiniii that he should teach philosophy in any college of the univer- sity, and that he should defend the These Robertine, even before he could obtain the licence en Theolvyie,
Once admitted, the associates were divided into two classes, the fellows and the guests, the latter being affili- ated, but not incorporated, with the house. The privi- lege of such residence was eagerly sought after. It ap- pears, however, that doctors of theology connected with other colleges were also called docteurs en Sorbonne. per- haps because the theological faculty was accustomed to hold its regular meetings in the halls of the Sorbonne, and they actually were doctors of the Sorbonne, inas- much as they had there acquired their title by defend- ing a thesis. If to all this be added the fact tliat the theological professors of several colleges were invarialily taken from the Sorbonne, it will be easy to understautl how the mistake of identifying the Sorbonne with the theological faculty of the university originated.
The Sorbonne has during its career pursued two lead- ing tendencies — that of reconciling theology with phi- losophy, and that of preserving theology in orthoilox purity and unquestioned supremacy. Pliilological and philosophical studies were taught in its halls; but its spirit and importance, as well as its true merit, are to be sought in its theological eft'ectiveness alone. The ap- paratus of learning was at first too meagre to admit of noticeable results. Down to the 14th century the study of Latin constituted the whole of philology. Philoso- phy stimulated theological inquiry, but theology could lay no claim to a scientific character. It had no exe- gesis, and could not presume to a knowledge of dogmat- ics. The students lacked books, the teachers acquaint- ance with the most necessarj' languages. But under the circumstances, and. according to its opportunity, the Sorbonne watched over the orthodoxy of theology according to the councils and the fathers, though such supervision belonged to the diocesan. Its influence was, however, exercised indirectly over the theological faculty, the university, and even the conseils du roi. The Sorbonne as an association did not appear publicly in defence of doctrine, or send representatives to Church councils, or take part in political meetings. Statements made to that effect must be understood as referring to the university' or the theological faculty rather than the Sorbonne ; though the fact that all the principal doctors belonged to the Sorbonne assured her practical participation in all important affairs. More than once it opposed the collection of Peter's pence and the Inqui- sition. In April, 1531, it condemned several tenets taken from Luther's writings, and during the Reformation of the Itjth century it laid under the ban of its censure a long list of writings by different authors, some of them even the works of eminent bishops, and one of them the Catholic version of the Bible by Rene Benoit.
It is to be noted that in all this the Sorbonne was not a blind agent of the Church. It contended against all Protestant aspirations, but also against all Jesuitical as- sumptions. It was the earliest defender of the Galilean liberties and of the accepted doctrines of the Church, When the cardinal of Lorraine had procured from Hen- ry II the right to build a Jesuits' college in Paris, the Sorbonne declared the Order of Jesuits dangerous to the faith, the peace of the Church, anil the monastic disci- pline. When Martin Becan published his Controrersia Anglic(tna de Potestate Regis et Pontijicis (lt)12), and queen Marie de Medicis forbade the intervention of the Sorbonne, the latter, nevertheless, denounced the book as dangerous to morality, etc. It defended the purity of the received doctrines against even the pope and the curia. Of 128 doctors, only forty-nine were ready to accept the bull Unigenittis without protest, though the absolute king Louis XIV favored it, and many declared themselves directly opposed to its reception.
The Sorbonne, i. e. the theological faculty, considered itself the guardian of a pure faith and the scientific or- gan of the Church down to the beginning of the 18th century. In 1717 it ])ut forth an effort, on the occasion of the presence of Peter the Great in Paris, to bring about the union of the Greek and Roman churches. It was at the time the highest authority in the Galilean