increased, and longed for a fitting opportunity of expressing itself by outward acts. These doctrines seemed to him to embody both the past and the future of the Church; after having shaped his thoughts in accordance with them, he took them as the standard of his daily conduct."

The presence of Louis IX. on the throne of France may be considered as one of the most serious blows struck at the intolerable ambition of the Court of Rome. A king who was inflexible in putting down evil wherever it appeared, and whose piety was so sincere that not even the Pope could be reputed holier -a king of such a character, respected by the whole of Christendom, and generally looked upon as a saint, must find his orders obeyed, and his advice immediately accepted, even if advice and orders were in direct opposition to the will of the successor of Saint Peter. When, in 1246, the French barons subscribed a bond of mutual defence against ecclesiastical despotism, they could boast that Saint-Louis had given them his approbation, and thus rally around themselves a host of adherents. When Pope Innocent IV, attempted to obtain virtually a declaration of infallibility on behalf of the prelate, and even the inferior clergy, by requesting the king to order that all excommunicated persons should solicit absolution without expecting to know the causes of their condemnation, Louis IX. refused at once. As M. Perrens well remarks, the King's attachment to the Church could not be doubted, and he had even gone so far as to uphold the mendicant orders against the University of Paris, whose Rector, Guillaume de Saint Amour, he sentenced to exile. But when he saw the insatiable lust of power of the Papacy aiming at the very authority of the Crown, he opposed a timely resistance; by refusing Innocent's request, he conceded to the secular judge a right above the ecclesiastical one in all questions where faith is not concerned; further, he extended that right from himself to all magistrates and officers acting by virtue of a commission held under the Crown. The appeal against ecclesiastical sentences to the King's Court was established as a principle; and, finally, all Frenchmen were directed no longer to look up to Rome for rules of action and guidance in thought.

Whilst Louis IX. thus maintained the privileges of temporal rulers with a distinctness which cannot too much be praised, the French clergy were equally clear and determined in laying down the fundamental axioms of that semi-political, semireligious theory which has been since so famous under the name of Gallicanism. Independence and freedom of action of the bishops in their respective dioceses; right of the whole clergy to take a part in ecclesiastical elections; reduction of the See of Rome to the merely honorific supremacy it formerly enjoyed;

subordination of the Pope's decrees to the verdict of Ecumenical Councils; such are the leading points, for the due and safe possession of which an array of legists, clergymen, and statesmen unflinchingly contended from the days of Philip the Fair to those of Bossuet and Cardinal Fleury.

But we have lingered too long at the threshold of our subject, and we must arrive at the subject itself. In a very clever and picturesquely drawn chapter, M. Perrens gives us a survey of the state of France when the knife of Jacques Clément, by striking the last of the Valois, dealt at the same time a fatal blow at the Ultramontanist party. The picture is a dismal one; and the most curious feature, perhaps, in the whole sketch is the alliance contracted between the "Ligue" and democracy. After the death of Henry III., the "sixteen" were really the rulers of France; recognising no authority but that of the Pope, no law but that of the Council of Trent. Their ambition was to found, upon the ruins of the kingdom, the independence of the communes, and to inaugurate a state of things much like that dreamt of three years ago by the Communists Delescluze, Rossel, and Pascal Grousset. In order to shake off the power of the feudal aristocracy, they were ready to sell France to Philip II. The thorough want of patriotism which such designs betrayed was the determining cause of the dissolution of the "Ligue"; and it remained to be seen whether Henry of Navarre would have sufficient skill to avail himself of the mistakes committed by the Ultramontanist party. M. Perrens explains the position which the politiques assumed under those circumstances, and the importance they immediately obtained. That name has been given by historians to the enlightened Roman Catholics who, although attached to their religion, upheld the rights of conscience, and saw no objection to acknowledge a Protestant as their sovereign. All Frenchmen, they believed, might be equally faithful subjects whilst belonging to different Churches; and the interest of Catholics themselves was evidently to proclaim Henry of Navarre at once, for if they refused to give him the crown, they would find a number of serious difficulties arising on all sides. The King of Spain would put forth his pretensions; under the excuse of resisting foreign rule, the chief representatives of the nobility would endeavour to re-establish the feudal system; and the Huguenots themselves, thanks to the general confusion, would probably succeed in founding an imperium in imperio.

If all this statement is correct, it is difficult to see what was the necessity of Henry of Navarre's abjuration. M. Perrens thinks, however, that it could not be prevented; but he is obliged to confess that throughout the whole preliminaries of this melancholy act the Béarnais displayed the most shameful duplicity. "La franchise," says he, "dont on lui fait parfois tant d'hon

neur était moins dans son caractère que la finesse et la ruse.' Without entering into a fresh discussion of a subject often controverted before, we may say, from a thorough examination of the facts quoted by M. Perrens, that although the immediate and outward results of the King's embracing Catholicism seemed to be favourable to Gallican principles, yet the negotiations conducted between the Louvre and the Vatican were nothing, in reality, but a compromise: "un compromis, un compromis," says our author, "sans franchise, sans dignité." Both the King and the Pope, apparently, claimed a great deal, and put forth the most exorbitant demands; in reality, they were satisfied with very moderate concessions, and the longing for peace rendered the task of negotiating relatively easy. We do not wonder at finding, however, that so unsatisfactory a state of affairs did not last; and whilst the Pope very naturally longed to establish in France the Tridentine rule as it was in Spain and in Italy, the French "politiques," on the other hand, aimed at showing to the champions of Ultramontanism that on this side of the Alps the theories of the Holy See respecting the relations between Church and State would never be tolerated. These disputes, perseveringly carried on, brought into notice a number of experienced and accomplished controversialists-Du Perron, D'Ossat, Jeannin, Sillery-whose portraits, sketched by M. Perrens, are not the least interesting feature in his volumes. The nuncio Ubaldini forms, so to say, the centre of all these negotiations; during a period of seven years he was the soul of the Vatican, suggesting to the Pope resolutions, sometimes wise, sometimes bold, and taking the initiative when circumstances required prompt action.

Henry IV., assisted by firm and intelligent coadjutors, had contrived at least to maintain the principles of Gallicanism with tolerable success against the tortuous designs of Italian politics. At his death the Pope took the advantage of the regency of Mary de Medici to begin a fresh campaign; and it is in this part of the work we are now examining that the complications of diplomacy become both more puzzling and at the same time more interesting. The numerous extracts quoted by M. Perrens from the State papers and memoirs of the seventeenth century are so ably illustrated that they preclude the necessity of studying the originals in extenso; and it is extremely curious to watch all the incidents of diplomatic warfare carried on by astute politicians against a woman who allowed herself to be the tool of worthless favourites. At last Richelieu assumed the direction of affairs, and Gallicanism seemed definitively established as the code of ecclesiastical law in France. We say seemed, because, as M. Perrens himself abundantly shows, the views which are usually associated with that name can find

their exercise only if they are represented by men of such intellectual superiority as Bossuet or De Thou, and backed by the sic volo sic jubeo of a ruler like Richelieu or Louis XIV.

It is a most remarkable thing that the men of genius who governed France under the reign of Louis XIII. actually contemplated the possibility of detaching France from the Romish Church by making of it a distinct patriarchate. Grotius alludes to this circumstance in his correspondence, and the Jesuit Rabardeau composed a work to prove that such an act of separation had nothing schismatic in it. The relations with the Holy See led to complications and difficulties which had often struck Richelieu, and which were inconsistent with the dignity and the independence of the nation. By a few concessions, judiciously made, the Huguenots might have perhaps been won over, and a Church establishment reared similar to that which Henry VIII. had so successfully built on the other side of the Channel. There is no doubt that if Richelieu had been under the influence of strong religious feelings, he would have unhesitatingly consummated the schism, certain as he was to be backed by a legion of distinguished writers, and nearly all the secular clergy of the realm. But the dangers attendant upon so serious an act frightened him, especially when viewed in connection with the other questions he had to settle; and as far as ecclesiastical problems were concerned, the only result he accomplished was to give, so to say, a new lease to the Utopian scheme of Gallicanism. Peter and James Du Puy, two writers of extensive erudition and thoroughly devoted to the Cardinal's political system, published in 1638, under the title "Des Libertés de l'Eglise Gallicane," a collection of the boldest treatises on the Liberal side, including the reprint of a famous work of Peter Pithou. The object of these gentlemen was to prove (1) that during the whole period previous to the 8th century the Popes had exercised no authority in France; (2) that the clergy, both regular and secular, enjoyed no exemption whatever from the payment of the taxes and the action of the law. The rage created by the publication of the "Des Libertés" amongst the supporters of Ultramontanism may be easily imagined. The Nuncio complained bitterly to Richelieu, and insisted upon the suppression of the work. Obliged at last to yield, the Cardinal-minister ostensibly directed that the request of the Vatican should be complied with, but merely on the ground that Du Puy's book had appeared without the usual privilege of the King. At the same time, nothing whatever was done to prevent the booksellers from exhibiting for sale the ponderous folios; and the mere fact that the work had been prohibited at Rome only tended to increase the number of readers.

One of the arguments brought forward against the treatise "Des Libertés" was, that it transformed the Church into a blind tool of the State, and bound it hand and foot to the caprice of King or of a Prime Minister. The accusation is perfectly true, and on this occasion the right nail, to use a common expression, was hit on the head. Under a constitutional form of government, the defect we are now alluding to would, no doubt, be minimized; but when the reins are in the hands of a Louis XIV. or a Napoleon, the priests can aim at no higher a position than that of superior police-officers, obliged to discover in the Holy Scriptures and the Fathers of the Church reasons for every caprice in which a despot chooses to indulge. No circumstance illustrates this better than the attitude assumed by the French Church after the famous Assembly of 1682 had passed its bold resolutions. At the very time when it separated itself from Rome it aimed at appearing more Catholic than the Pope himself, encouraged Louis XIV. to revoke the Edict of Nantes, and repudiated the principles of toleration in the name of which it endeavoured to justify its own rebellion against the tyranny of the Papal See.

We must now bring this imperfect review to a close. As M. Perrens remarks, Gallicanism is a thing of the past; but the apparent success which Rome has obtained by the promulgation of the Syllabus and of Papal Infallibility must not be considered as likely to be permanent. The struggle will be renewed sooner or later, with greater fierceness than before, the champions being on the one side scientific atheism, and Gospel Christianity on the other. With respect to the ultimate issue we can have no doubt.

THE NORTH SIDE OF THE TABLE.

The North Side of the Altar. A Liturgical Essay. By Richard Frederick Littledale, M.A., LL.D., Priest of the Church of England. 2nd Edition, Revised. London: Palmer. 1865. The Rubrical Determination of the Celebrant's Position. Considered in a Letter to the Rev. T. T. Carter, M.A., Rector of Clewer. By Henry Baskerville Walton, M.A., late Fellow of Merton College. London: Rivingtons. 1866.

The Annotated Book of Common Prayer. Edited by the Rev. John Henry Blunt, M.A. London: Rivingtons. 1866.

(Continued from p. 537.)

WE trust that we have satisfactorily shown that up to that unsettled period which immediately preceded the Civil Wars in