GALLICANISM

A complex of theological and political doctrines, administrative and judicial practices, and religious passions, which characterized the life of the Catholic Church in france from the late Middle Ages to the French Revolution. The adjective Gallican, derived from the Latin gallicanus, was for a long time in common usage without connoting a doctrine suspected of heresy; it was not, however, a synonym for French except in a few expressions such as Gallican Breviary, Gallican Church, Gallican liturgy, Gallican Flanders, and the Gallican province of the Third Order of St. Francis. Gallicanisme was not introduced into the French language as a noun until c. 1900. Soon after this it appeared in other languages. It was a convenient word because it replaced several other expressions in use since the 15th century, such as "maxims and immunities of the Gallican Church." A lawyer in the Paris Parlement c. 1800, taking his inspiration from Pierre Pithou, began an article dealing with the liberties of the Gallican Church thus: "The word Libertés, which proclaims to servile ultramontane minds exorbitant privileges, merely denotes the ancient right common to all churches, which the French have succeeded in defending against the court of Rome with more steadfastness than the magistrates and doctors of other Catholic nations." This jurist merely echoed a tradition when he opposed Gallicanism to ultramontanism (opinions commonly held beyond the mountains, in Italy, and more precisely, those held by Roman theologians and canonists, who had only a small number of representatives in France). The defenders of the liberties of the Gallican Church were and wished to remain Catholics. There were, in fact, many ways of interpreting the term "liberties," and of utilizing them. "We have found far less evidence of a developing Gallican system than of Gallican systems that succeed one another" (M. Dubruel, Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique 2:201); but this author and his collaborator, H. X. Arquillière, multiplied in this famous article, examples of successions and traced Gallicanism as far back as the Carolingian period (ibid. ). In any case, the best contemporary historian is explicit: "There is not one Gallicanism but Gallicanisms, so different are the interpretations of doctors, bishops, magistrates, and kings"(A. G. Martimort, Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet 7). If Gallicanism terminated with the end of the alliance between throne and altar during the french revolution of 1789, the revival during the 19th century of some theses dear to Gallicanism can be called neo-Gallicanism.

Despite the varieties of Gallicanism, Victor martin has attempted to establish a common source for all of them, which consisted of three basic ideas: independence of the king of France in the temporal order; superiority of general councils over the pope; and union of king and clergy in France to limit papal intervention within the kingdom, in the name of ancient canons (Les Origines du gallicanisme 1:7). This appeal to ancient canons, or to rights acquired in ancient times by the Church of France, seems to be the distinctive trait of a certain French anti-Romanism; it eliminated the possibility of confusing Gallicanism with other similar movements that were spreading over Europe long before the appearance of febronianism and josephinism.

Gallicanism is inseparable from a certain pride of French Catholicism. It did not believe in the donation of constantine. It knew that pepin iii, Charlemagne's father, helped Pope Stephen II (753) and had permitted him to lay the foundations for the states of the church. Since then, France has been called the eldest daughter of the Church, with St. Petronilla, daughter of St. Peter, as her patron saint. The king of France was consecrated with oil said to have been brought from heaven by an angel and believed to have the miraculous power of healing the king's evil (scrofula). He was not elected; he believed that his power came to him directly from God. "The king of France and the emperor are not one and the same thing," wrote an author in the service of King Charles V, in Le Songe du verger (1376). Independent of the emperor and an emperor in his own kingdom, the king claimed to be dependent on the pope only in spiritual matters, not at all in temporal affairs. The conflict of philip iv the Fair with Pope boniface viii demonstrated this in striking and brutal fashion.

First Manifestations (1398–1438). It was during the attempts to end the western schism that the ancient immunities of the Gallican Church were evoked and discovered. Following a national synod, Charles VI decided (July 27, 1398) to sever relations with Benedict XIII, the Avignon pope, and to do so without any recognition of Boniface IX as pope. The end of the royal ordinance read thus: "The king intends to take the necessary measures to make certain that in the future the Gallican Church will, under all circumstances, retain its original immunities and liberties to use them and enjoy them" (V. Martin, Origines 288–289). In accord with his clergy, the king of France had, therefore, passed judgment on the pope (or at least on the one he thought to be pope), because this pontiff, too eager for money, was no longer fulfilling his proper function as servant of the common good of all the faithful. The national synod of 1398 was not a general council, but because of the dangers threatening the Church it was considered to be virtually a general council (V. Martin, Origines 1:283). The Church in France, which was making use of its original immunities to assume full liberty, freed itself from the demands of the papal treasury only to fall under royal fiscal control; it escaped papal abuses in the distribution of benefices only to submit its litigations to the Paris parlement. After undergoing other difficulties, the Church in France rejoiced to see the Western Schism terminated with the election of Pope Martin V (1417). But the ancient immunities and privileges, which were used merely as an expedient during a crucial period, became, as Charles VI had desired, a permanent institution.

The desire to end abuses once again brought about a national synod, this time at Bourges, to legislate as a general council. A royal ordinance, the pragmatic sanction (1438), collected the decisions concerning the authority of general councils, the conferring of benefices, elections, expectancies, appeals, annates, the celebration of Divine Office, and other ecclesiastical matters (F.A. Isambert, Recueil général des anciennes lois françaises 9:3–47). According to the Pragmatic Sanction ecumenical councils must convene every 10 years, as the Councils of constance and basel had ordained; an ecumenical council is superior to the pope; bishops must be elected by cathedral chapters, and abbots, by their abbeys. Some of these articles undoubtedly anticipated the reform work of the Council of trent a century later, but the Pragmatic was a document of debatable canonical value and also a condemned one; yet it had considerable value. Members of the parlements, who were charged with supervising the observance of the Pragmatic, long regarded it as the special constitution of the Gallican Church. Doctors on the various faculties of theology were wary of it for fear lest graduates lose their privileges, which allowed them to obtain benefices more easily than could other clerics. Bishops were of two minds about it. They approved the independence it afforded the Church in France; but they did not like it when they were themselves elected by chapters and then found these chapters too powerful. (see conciliarism.)

Ramifications of Gallicanism (1438–1594). Gallicanism assumed several different aspects: rigid among members of the parlements, nuanced among theologians, hesitant among bishops, and opportunist among kings.

Gallicanism of Parlement. As guardians of the holy decrees of the Gallican Church and of the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges members of the parlements wished to establish their own courts as a supreme ecclesiastical court and as the necessary intermediary between the national Church and the pope. Every summons to Rome, omisso medio, was considered by them an abuse. No papal document and no papal legate could enter France without the consent of the Paris parlement. In 1465 this parlement presented the king with a remonstrance composed of 89 articles. In them it was sorrowful as it recalled the years from 1407 to 1439, but joyful as it evoked the years from 1439 to 1461 (the year in which Louis XI suppressed the Pragmatic). During this latter period, it claimed, the Pragmatic had brought prosperity to the king and his kingdom and rendered the Church in France illustrious with saintly prelates and numerous miracles. To repeal it, according to articles 18 and 19 of the remonstrance, would expose both king and kingdom to every evil, and especially to four: the whole ecclesiastical order would be thrown into confusion (art. 20–61); the kingdom would become depopulated (art. 62–66); the currency would be sent abroad (art. 67–80); and all dioceses would be ruined (art. 81–89). It was held necessary, therefore, to maintain "the freedom of elections and the exoneration of the Church from the heavy burden of annates" (E. Maugis, Histoire du Parlement de Paris de l'avènement des rois Valois à la mort d'Henri IV [Paris 1913] 1:707–708). Logical in its own interests, parlement opposed the official registration of the concordat of 1516 and had to be compelled before it registered the pact in 1518. Its remonstrances of 1579–80, for example, still pleaded for the reestablishment of the Pragmatic as something very praiseworthy and desired by all royal subjects (ibid. 1:710).

Theological Gallicanism. Just as the Parlement of Paris set the tone for the other parlements, so the Faculty of Theology of the University of paris set the tone for the provincial universities. Its doctors were the spiritual heirs of peter of ailly and Jean gerson, who played a decisive role at the Council of Constance and contributed to ending the Western Schism. These doctors revered the pope, but above all they loved the Church. They believed that a pope might err but not the Church. To the latter, united in general council, "each one owes obedience, no matter what rank or dignity he may hold, even papal." This decree of the fifth session of the Council of Constance was one that met with unanimous approval among French theologians. They liked to repeat, with St. Jerome, "orbis major est urbe." University, or theological, Gallicanism claimed that if the papal power was not limited in itself, it was in its use and exercise by natural law, by the very constitution of the Church, and by the ancient statutes that governed various churches. "We do not read," said Gerson, "that Christ conferred on the pope the power to dispose of benefices, dignities, bishoprics, domains, or ecclesiastical properties. We read nowhere that Peter ever exercised this power." (P. Imbart de la Tour, Les Origines de la Réforme 2:77–83; Martimort, op. cit. 17–56). This tradition was presented by French bishops at the Council of Trent, but it nearly disappeared later as a consequence of the Counter Reformation. In 1611 the Syndic of the Faculty of Theology of Paris, Ed. Richer revived it in order to oppose ultramontanism. His extreme views were rejected but theological Gallicanism subsisted in the faculty, expressed in a succession of pronouncements, the most important of which are the Six Articles of 1663, the source of the 1682 Gallican Articles, and the censure of J. Vernant (1664), "the most somplete synthesis of what the faculty achieved againts the Ultramontanes for many centuries" (A. G. Martimort, Le gallicanisme de Bossuet 245). It was renewed by the opponents to the bull Unigenitus and was eventually condemned by Auctorem fidei.

Episcopal Gallicanism. French theologians spoke rarely of the liberties of the Gallican Church but the bishops made much of them. They claimed for themselves the exercise of a threefold liberty: administrative, permitting them to deliberate among themselves, especially in provincial councils; fiscal, allowing them to levy taxes (tithes) and to dispose of the income; and judicial, giving them the right to have diocesan officials and to be the sole judges of fellow bishops, when these have failed to fulfill their duties. Should parlements encroach on episcopal jurisdiction, the prelates appealed to the king's council, nor did they overlook the pope. In the 15th century an archbishop of Toulouse composed a whole treatise against the validity of the Pragmatic and in favor of papal supremacy, while an archbishop of Tours published another treatise, Contre la constitution impie des Gallicans appellée Pragmatique. In 1487 the bishop of Autun published some papal bulls without having them officially registered and invited the clergy and faithful to obey them. Two years later, the bishop of Luçon refused to have certain briefs revoked; in 1491 the bishop of Beauvais placed a papal interdict on the lands of the priests belonging to the Archdiocese of Narbonne. Others accepted mandates from delegated judges, general collectors of tithes. After the Council of Trent, the bishops came into conflict with statesmen. The conviction that further entreaties were useless led the bishops to distinguish between the role of a prince and the duties of the episcopate. It was, then, the struggle precipitated in France by the introduction of the Tridentine reforms that allowed for the acceptance of the "separating of powers:" the religious power, the guide of consciences, whose domain is the supernatural; and the civil power, engaged mainly with temporal affairs and endowed with physical force to put its will into effect.

Royal Gallicanism. After the appearance of the Pragmatic Sanction, the king sought much less to keep aloof from the pope than to negotiate with him; but the royal motivation was more self-interest than religion. In 1442 Charles VII agreed to renounce the Pragmatic and to conclude a concordat with Pope Eugene IV. Negotiations broke down, but reopened in 1449. King Louis XI made known to Pope Pius II his intention of abrogating the Pragmatic (1461) and proclaimed its abrogation in 1462. But the ordinances issued in 1463 and 1466 nullified the significance of this spectacular act. After Louis XI came to an understanding with Pope Sixtus IV (1472), a concordat, which remained in force for three years, provided that major benefices should be at the king's disposal, while minor benefices should be conferred by the pope in the uneven months and by the king in the even months. After 1475 the king avoided the strict application of the Pragmatic and allowed electors to select their own candidates. After a new attempt at a concordat (1485), King Francis I and Pope Leo X signed at Bologna in 1516 a concordat that was observed until 1790. This concordat put an end to the Pragmatic, which had been praised as "the palladium of national liberties." The concordat granted the king in perpetuity the unique privilege of naming to consistorial benefices but said nothing about the papal right to collect annates. Later papal demands that the Tridentine decrees be received officially in France went unheeded. The kings could no doubt have overcome the obstinacy of the parlements. It was not fear of excessive papal power that deterred them but rather the fear of being deprived of the privilege of commendation. The Blois ordinance (1579) tried to introduce a part of the Tridentine reform into French legislation but Pope Gregory XIII could not allow France once again to legislate as in 1438.

Pithou. Pierre pithou, a lawyer in the Paris parlement, published in 1594 a 54-page treatise (Les Libertés de l'Église gallicane ) that had astounding success well into the 19th century. This booklet was divided into 83 articles. This catalogue of propositions, arranged to attract French readers, was doubtless less logical than was claimed in article three where the author affirmed that all the following liberties stemmed from two maxims only: "The first is that the popes can neither command nor ordain anything, be it general or particular, that bears on the temporal affairs of countries or lands under obedience to the Most Christian King, and should they command or decree any such thing, the subjects of the king, even though they be clerics, are therefore not bound to obey" (art. 4); "The second, although the pope is recognized as sovereign in spiritual matters, nevertheless absolute and infinite power has no place in France, but is restricted and limited by the canons and rules of the ancient councils of the Church accepted in this kingdom" (art. 5). To exemplify these maxims Pithou continued: "The prelates of France may not leave the kingdom without his majesty's permission" (art. 13). "The king's officers cannot be excommunicated for the exercise of their duties" (art. 16). "The bull In coena Domini is not accepted in France" (art. 17). "The Church of France does not accept all the decretals" (art. 41).

Pierre Dupuy (1582–1651), state counselor and curator of the royal library, republished Pithou's book as part of Traitez des droits et libertés de l'Église gallicane, and commented on it in Preuves des Libertés de l'Église gallicane. These two works appeared in 1639; a second edition came out in 1651. Jean Louis Brunet (1688–1747), a lawyer in the Paris parlement, added considerably to these two books in 1731. Pierre Toussaint Durand de Maillane (1729–1814), lawyer in the Aix-en-Provence parlement, organized the material accumulated by Dupuy and Brunet and called his compilation, increased by new commentaries, Les Libertés de l'Église gallicane prouvées et commentées suivant l'ordre et la disposition des articles dressés par M. Pierre Pithou (5 v. Lyon 1771). It was a summary of Parlementary Gallicanism with all its excesses. No work could give a clearer and more complete idea of this teaching. Without being guilty of rash judgment, one could apply to it what the French bishops said in 1639 of Dupuy's two volumes: "a hateful work, full of the most venomous propositions and presenting formal heresies under the fair name of freedoms ….Never has the Christian faith, the Catholic Church, ecclesiastical discipline, the safety of the kingdom been attacked by more pernicious doctrines." In the same tone, but with a touch of humor, Claude fleury, a canonist and a moderate Gallican, observed in his Discours sur les libertés de l'Église gallicane (1723): "Any bad Frenchman, who could flee to safety outside France, could write a Traité des servitudes de l'Église gallicane, as has already been done in regard to its liberties, and he need not lack for proofs."

Declaration of 1682. At the meeting of the Estates General (1615) the clergy rejected the first maxim of Parlementary Gallicanism, that of the absolute independence of the king in relation to the pope in temporal affairs. A meeting of the Assembly of French Clergy (see assemblies of french clergy) some months later accepted decrees of the Council of Trent. These two important decisions did not imply that the French clergy, with the bishops at their head, had ceased to defend the Gallican liberties. If such was the intent, repentance was made in 1682. Victor Martin has devoted an entire book, Le Gallicanisme politique et le clergé de France (1929), to explaining how this reversal came about. Nevertheless, the declaration of 1615 at the Estates General pertained only to the first of the four articles of 1682.

The declaration of March 19, 1682, the manifesto of episcopal Gallicanism, was approved by an extraordinary meeting of the Assembly of the French Clergy. King louis xiv permitted this reunion of 52 bishops and priests to settle the affair of the regalia and to condemn a book. The Second General Council of Lyons (1274) had tolerated the continuance of the regalia in the dioceses in which it already existed, but forbade bishops, under pain of excommunication, to permit it to be introduced into dioceses in which it did not already exist. Louis XIV wished to extend the regalia throughout his kingdom (1673–75). It might seem that the king, as a good Gallican, would want to obey the prescriptions of a general council, but this would confuse royal Gallicanism, which had little concern for doctrine, with the Gallicanism of the theologians. Royal Gallicanism had only to accept the principles of Parlementary Gallicanism as established by Dupuy, which held that the canons and decrees subsequent to the 9th century were not obligatory. In any event, two French bishops took their stand on the Second Council of Lyons and opposed Louis XIV. Pope innocent xi approved them. After the death of these two bishops, the conflict between the French court and the Holy See still perdured in 1681.

The condemnation of a book by Jean Gerbais, Dissertatio de causis majoribus ad caput concordatorum (1679), did not improve matters. A brief of Innocent XI (Dec. 18, 1680) reproved the book's contents as "schismatic, suspect of heresy, and injurious to the Holy See." Gerbais had written his book at the request of the 1665 Assembly of the Clergy, and in it he defended some of the ideas cherished by episcopal Gallicanism, namely, that bishops have the right to judge matters relative to faith and also to judge, as courts of first instance, their fellow bishops.

The extraordinary assembly of 1681–82 believed that it could contribute to the reestablishment of peace between the king and the pope by determining clearly the respective powers of popes, kings, and bishops. J. B. bossuet, Bishop of Meaux, was charged with drafting a declaration in Latin. The preamble demonstrated the conciliatory purposes of the document, which sought to avoid the excesses of those who were attacking the decrees and liberties of the Gallican Church (i.e., the ultra-montanists) and also the excesses of those who magnified these liberties even to the point of casting aspersions on the primacy of the pope and the obedience due to the Holy See by all Christians. The essentials of the first article have been noted above. The second article admitted the papal plenitude of power and also accepted as permanently valid the decrees of the fourth and fifth sessions of the Council of Constance regarding the superiority of ecumenical councils over popes. The third article insisted that the papal power must be exercised in conformity with the ancient canons and with the customs of the Gallican Church. The fourth article admitted that in decisions on matters of faith the pope enjoys the principal role but claimed that his judgments are not irreformable without the consent of the universal Church (see declaration of the french clergy).

Louis XIV was pleased to accept this declaration and issued an edict (March 1682) that enjoined the professors of theology to subscribe to it and to teach it each year, and required bishops to make known its contents in their dioceses. Once the king had won the clergy to his side, he believed that Innocent XI would finally yield to his wishes, but he was mistaken. A new conflict, which began because of other royal demands relative to the quarters of the French embassy in Rome, aggravated the situation. Innocent XI continued to refuse to confirm the bishops whom Louis XIV proposed to him. As a result there were 35 dioceses vacant in France in 1689 when Innocent XI died.

In 1690 Pope Alexander VIII condemned the declaration of 1682 (see below). In a letter to Innocent XII (Sept. 14, 1693), Louis XIV denounced his own edict of March 1682. The declaration could have been condemned much sooner, in accord with its own principles, if foreign bishops had followed the example given them in 1682 by the primate of Hungary. Bossuet sensed the danger and composed between 1683 and 1685 an extensive defense in Latin: Defensio declarationis cleri gallicani, which did not appear in print until 1745. Despite the withdrawal of Louis XIV's edict, the declaration of 1682 continued to be widely taught in France during the 18th century. In 1772 Jacques Émery wrote: "To avoid the least suspicion of ultramontanism, we add that we adhere fully to the maxims of the French clergy contained in the declaration of 1682. We consider this declaration to be a precious monument, valuable even to the Holy See, which we do not doubt will one day recognize its wisdom" (cited by J. Leflon, Monsieur Emery [Paris 1947] 2:302).

Last Manifestations. In the 18th century, royal and episcopal Gallicanism became circumspect. Thus the king himself forbade (1720, 1730) his subjects to bring the topic of an appeal to a future council. Parlementary Gallicanism, on the other hand, became more and more violent and repeatedly had recourse to the appeal from an abuse (appel comme d’abus ). Theological Gallicanism was divided. There were moderates, who sided with the bishops, and Jansenists, who made common cause with the Gallicans of the parlements. In jansenism could be found something of Presbyterianism, parochialism, and even of laicism, as well as of Gallicanism. Gallicanism died with the civil constitution of the clergy (1790), which broke the bond between the king and his clergy. The situation then was far different from that under the Pragmatic Sanction. After the parlements had discredited Gallicanism, they were themselves abolished during the French Revolution. J. E. M. Portalis, who thought he could conciliate his admiration for the declaration of 1682 with the decisions of the 18th-century parlements, tried to revive the liberties of the Gallican Church by adding 77 Organic Articles to the 17 articles of the French concordat of 1801. This, however, was merely one of the means of controlling the Church open to Napoleon. Furthermore, nothing was more contrary to episcopal Gallicanism than the resignation of the entire French hierarchy in obedience to the demand of pius vii. Associated as it was with Bossuet's name, the declaration of 1682 continued to have admirers. Between 1824 and 1860, A. Dupin published five editions of Pithou's book; but his Manuel du droit public ecclésiastique française, which contained Pithou's work, was condemned by the majority of French bishops, even by those who were Gallicans; it was also placed on the Index (1845). Between 1845 and 1865 the French clergy withdrew their attachment to Gallicanism and adhered in great numbers to ultramontanism. Henri maret tried to conciliate Gallicanism with liberalism in his book, Du concise général et de la paix religieuse (1869). After the complete separation of Church and State in France (1905), the upholders of laicism, although indifferent to the Catholic Church or hostile to it, regretted more than the Catholics themselves the abrogation of the concordat of 1801 and its attached Organic Articles.

Papal Condemnations. The papal condemnations of the appel comme d’abus, the appeal to a future council, the exequatur, and the placet also affected Gallicanism. When Leo X promulgated the concordat of 1516 with the bull Pastor aeternus (1516), he also attacked Gallican conciliarism (Enchiridion symbolorum 740). Alexander VIII's constitution Inter multiplices (1690) decreed the Four Gallican Articles void (Enchiridion symbolorum 1322–26). Pius VI renewed Alexander VIII's condemnation in his constitution auctorem fidei (1794) against the Synod of Pistoia, which had, among other things, adopted Gallicanism (Enchiridion symbolorum 1599). The syllabus of errors (1864) included an attack on Gallicanism. The solemn definitions of the papal primacy and infallibility at vatican council i (1870) rendered impossible any revival of the old Gallican claims, which were by then a faded memory.

Bibliography: v. martin, Les Origines du gallicanisme, 2 v. (Paris 1939); Le Gallicanisme et la réforme catholique: Essai historique sur l'introduction en France des decrets du Concile de Trente, 1563–1615 (Paris 1919); Le Gallicanisme politique et le clergé de France, 1615–1682 (Paris 1929). j. lecler, "Qu’est-ce que les libertés de l'Église gallicane?" Recherches de science religieuse 23 (1933) 385–410, 542–568; 24 (1934) 47–85. a. fliche and v. martin, eds., Histoire de l'église depuis les origines jusqu'à nos jours (Paris 1935–) v. 7–21, esp. 7, 14, 15, 18–21. p. imbart de la tour, Les Origines de la Réforme v. 2, ed. y. lanhers (2d ed. Melun 1944) 73–125. g. mollat, "Les Origines du gallicanisme parlementaire aux XIV^e et XV^e siècles," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 43 (1948) 90–147. a. g. martimort, Le Gallicanisme de Bossuet (Paris 1953). j. r. palanque, Catholiques libéraux et gallicans en France face au concile du Vatican, 1867–1870 (Aixen-Provence 1962). r. thysman, "Le Gallicanisme de Mgr. Maret et l'influence de Bossuet," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 52 (1957) 401–465. l. bÉrard, "Séparation, gallicanisme et concordat," Revue des deux mondes (July–August 1957) 193–216. e. puyol, Edmond Richer. Etude historique et critique sur la renovation du Gallicanisme au commencement du XVIIe siècle (Paris 1876). m. vÉnard, "Ultramontane or Gallican? The French Episcopate at the End of the Sixteenth Century," Jurist 52 (1992), 142–161. p. blet, Les assemblées du Clergé et Louis XIV, de 1670 à 1693 (Rome 1972). r. duchon, "De Bossuet à Febronius," Revue d'histoire ecclésiastique 65 (1970) 375–422. j. m. gresgayer, Le Gallicanisme de Sorbonne (Paris 2001). w. j. bouswsma, "Gallicanism and the Nature of Christendom," A Usable Past: Essays in European Cultural History (Berkeley) 308–324. h. g. rule, "Louis XIV and the Church," Louis XIV and the Craft of Kingship, ed. j. c. rule (Ohio 1969) 240–263. p. sonnino, Louis XIV's View of the Papacy (Berkeley 1966). p. blet, Le clergé de France en ses assemblées (1615–1717) (Paris 1995). m. dubruel and h. x. arquilliÈre, Dictionnaire apologétique de la foi catholique, ed. a. d'alÈs, 4 v. (Paris 1911–22; Table analytique 1931) 2:193–273. m. dubruel, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant et al., 15 v. (Paris 1903–50; Tables générales 1951–) 6.1:1096–1157. c. constantin, Dictionnaire de théologie catholique, ed. a. vacant et al., 15 v. (Paris 1903–50; Tables générales 1951–) 4.1:185–205, s.v. "Déclaration de 1682." r. laprat, Dictionnaire de droit canonique, ed. r. naz, 7 v. (Paris 1935–65) 6:426–525, s.v. "Libertés de l'Église gallicane."

[c. berthelot du chesnay/

j. m. gres-gayer]