Loms 3!
thme kingB who denuuid what is jubt and reaMiiahlc; Ibetre&tiao "Chretien et Politique asserts that kings do not make peoples, but that peoples have made kin^ But the doctrine of the Di^-ine right of kings succeeded in establishing itself upon the ruiiis of the Fronde; according to that doctrine Louia XIV had to reckon only with God, and the same doctrine ser^'cd aa one of the supports of the dictatorship which he pro- tended to exercise over the Church of France.
In the"iHmoires" of Louis XIV a whole theory of the lolationa between Church and State is expounded. He seta forth that the king is the proprietor of the Church's wealth, in virtue of the maxim that there is no other proprietor in the kingdom but the king. He holds that all the faithful, "whether lav or t<ni!iiired". are the sovereign's subjects; that'^hc clerey ^i^ bound to bew their part pecuniarily in the public burdens, and that they "should not excuse themselves from that obligation by alleging that their pos!*c»sions are for B particular purpoiie, or that the employment (A thoM poBsestuons muBt be regulated by the intention of the donors". The oascmblioit of tliu clergy, which discuss the amounts la be contributed by the cler^', ate, in the eyes of Loui.^ XIV, only tolerated; he con- aidets that, as sovereign, he would be within bis rights in laying imposts upon the clerjo'i and that " the popes who have wished to contest that right of royalty tiave made it clearer and more incontcstal>lG by the ilistinct withdrawal of their ambitious pretensions which they have been obUged to make"; he declares it to be inad- missible that ecclesiastics, "exempt from the dangers of war and the burden of families", should not con- tribute to the necessities of the State. The Minims of Provence had dedicated to Louis XlVa thesis in which they compared him to God; Bossuet declared that the loDg could not tolerate any such doctrine, and the Sor- bonne condemned it. But at Court the person of the kii^ was the object of a sort ot religious worship, in which certain courtier bishops loo easily acquiesced, and the consequence of which became perceptible in the relations between the Church and thn Slate.
From these principles resulted bis attitude towards the assemblies of the clergy. He shortened the dura- tion of their sessions and caused them to l)c watched by his ministers, while Colliert, who detested the finan-
semblies which the wisest politicians have alwi
aidered dineases of the body politic", l-'rom tnese
principles, too, arose the fear of cvcrj'thing by which
churchmen could aci^uire pohtlcul influence. Unlike
his predecessors, Louis XlV employed few prelates in
the service of the State.
The Concordat of Francis I placed a large number of benefices at the disposal of Louis XIV; he felt that the appointment of bishops wa.1 the most critical part of bis kingly duty, and the bishops whom he appointed were, in general, very well chosen. He erred, how- ever, in the readiness with which ho dispensed them from residence in their dioceses, while, as to abliacies, he too often availed himscir of them to reward services rendered by laymen, and gave them an means of sup-
Ert to impoverished nobles, Tothef'omteduVexin, I SOD by Madame de MonteNpaii, he gave the two creat Abbacies of Saint- Denis and Suint-CIcrmain-des- Frte.
Louie XIV was particularly fond of taking a hand in doctrinal matters; and those who surrounded him ended by believing that the king could supervise the Church and supply it with information on religious
Juestiooa. Daf^esseau, on 14 August, 1699, went so ir as to proclaim that the King of France ought
reprimanded (or neglecting to report three preaches
of Paris who were in the haiiit of speaking of grace in a
Jansenistic manner.
IvOUIS XIV ANB THE Papacy. — There was always a certain inconsistency in Louis's policy towards the Holj[ Sec. On the one hand, he called forth the inter- vention of Alexander Vll against the Jan.senists (see below), which would have 1)ecn anomalous if the king had believed that the Bishop of Rome was no more in the Church than any Otiier bishop. On the other hanil, he set himself up as the head of his Church (thougl„atthesame time, not wishing to Iwsohismati- eal), and the Gallicaiiism of his inagistral«s " — ' ='■•"'•
. ..if Augsburg,
Louis was careful to have a report prepared for him on a catechism which was suspected of Jansenism; and to, again, in 171 5, he caused a lieutenant of police to lie
of his bishops found support in him. Full submission
to Rome and rupture with Rome wi're e<|Ually distaste-
ful to him. The humiliation which he inflict«d on
Alexander VH when C'r^iui, his amliaasailor, hod to
complain of tho pope's (?orsican guard (August, 1662)
was inspired rather by the need of displaying his un-
limited power than by any feeling of hostility to the
Ilolv Hee (see Alexakdkr VII). In IfiTii^, a papal
Bull having condemned the censure which the Sor-
bonne had passed against the doctrine of infallibility,
I.x>uis, after inviting the procurator-general to appoil
against it cvmme d'abii», desisted from furtlier action.
In 166fi, when Colbert, in order to diminish the num-
l.>er of priests and monks, wished to put lioek the legal
age for ordination, the nuncio declared to Pi-re Aunat,
the king's confessor, that there would be a scliisni if
the king continued to consult only laymen on spiritual
affairs; Louis thought these words "horrible, and
('olljcrt's project was abandoned. In short, Louis
XlV held that, as he expressed it. it was "an advan-
tage that (he Roman Curia should be favourable to
him rather than unfavourable".
In 1673 the conflict of the rfgaU broke, tw*.. "ff^ae.
