BOSSUET, James Benigne, one of the most illustrious prelates which the church of France, so fruitful in great men, has ever produced, was born at Dijon on the 27th September 1627. He was descended from an ancient and noble family in Burgundy. On the establishment of the parliament of Metz, his father was appointed one of its counsellors. Being destined by his parents for the church, the young Bossuet took the - clerical tonsure before he had completed his eighth year. At first he was placed under the care of his uncle, the first president of the parliament of Metz; and he used to relate that, while a mere boy, under his uncle’s roof, he read the Old Testament with a relish and delight far exceeding any pleasure he afterwards felt on the perusal of any other work. His uncle afterwards placed him at the college of the Jesuits at Dijon, where he applied himself to his studies with such labour and success that they desired to attach him to themselves; but in 1642 his uncle sent him to Paris to the college of Navarre. Here, under the direction of the celebrated Nicholas Cornet the principal, Bossuet made rapid progress in Greek and philosophy, relieving his studies from time to time by reading the best works of antiquity; but the Scriptures and religious books always occupied a large share of his time. At the age of sixteen he supported his first thesis in a manner which gave indications of his future greatness, and which caused him to be already regarded as a prodigy. An extempore sermon which he shortly afterwards delivered, at the Hotel of Rambouillet, in presence of an assembly partly composed of the most celebrated men of the time, excited general admiration.

He was admitted into the corporation of the college at the age of twenty, on which occasion he chose for the subject of his thesis a comparison between the glory of this world and that which awaits the just in the next. During the delivery of this discourse, the great Condé, who had just dazzled France by the splendour of his victories, suddenly entered the hall, surrounded by a number of his companions in arms. The orator, without interrupting his harangue, immediately addressed himself to the young conqueror, and, in the name of France, paid him a just and appropriate tribute of admiration and praise; but he told him at the same time how vain and perishable was the glory which he had acquired. Forty years after, Bossuet repeated the same truths over the bier of the princely warrior. During the whole of that long period he had enjoyed his friendship and esteem.

In 1652 Bossuet took the degree of doctor, and received also the order of priesthood. In thus devoting himself to the cause of religion, he exclaimed, “Under thy auspices, 0 sacred Truth, I will joyfully approach those altars, which are to witness the oath I am about to take; an oath which our ancestors have often heard; that most pleasing and most sacred oath, by which I am to bind myself, even to death, to the holy cause of truth.” After passing some time in the retreat at St Lazarus, under the discipline of St’ Vincent de Paul, whose friendship he had obtained, he went to Metz, in the cathedral church of which city he had previously obtained the preferment of a canonicate, and where he was successively raised to the rank of archdeacon and dean. He now applied himself wholly to the duties of his ministry, edifying those who surrounded him by the puricy of his life, and astonishing them by the splendour of his talents. His first appearance as an author was in 1655, when he published his Refutation of the Catechism of Paul Ferry, a Protestant minister highly esteemed for his learning and talents. This work advanced his reputation greatly with his own party, and, it is said, gained him even the respect of the Protestants. The affairs of the cathedral rendering his presence necessary in Paris, he often preached there; and his sermons were so universally applauded, that he was appointed to preach in the chapel of the Louvre before Louis XIV. during the Lent of 1663. His Majesty signified the pleasure he derived from his sermons in a letter which his private secretary wrote by his desire to Bossuet’s father.

In 1669 he was nominated to the bishopric of Condom, but being appointed preceptor to the Dauphin the following year, he resigned his see, because he considered his new charge as inconsistent with the duty he owed to his diocese. For the instruction of the Dauphin he composed his work on universal history, which he divided into three parts. The first part is purely chronological; but it has been well observed that it scarcely contains a sentence in which there is not some noun or verb that conveys an image or suggests a sentiment of the noblest kind. The third part, which is historical, contains the most profound reflections on the rise and fall of empires. “But in the second part of it,” as one of his biographers observes, “the genius of Bossuet takes its highest flight. He never appears on the stretch of exertion; he is never lost in the mazes of argumentation; but, in a continued strain of sublime eloquence, he displays the truths and proofs of the Christian religion with a grandeur of thought, a magnificence of language, and a force of evidence, which nothing can withstand. A nobler work in support of Christianity has never issued from the press.” This work was first published in 1681. Ten years before, he had published his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Catholic Church in Matters of Controversy, which was speedily translated into all the living languages of Europe. Pope Innocent XI. formally approved of it by two successive briefs on the 22d November 1678 and the 12th July 1679; and the Gallican clergy in their assembly of 1682 gave it also the seal of their approbation. It has therefore, we believe, been regarded as a correct exposition of the tenets of the Roman Catholic Church.

The publication of the Exposition gave rise to the famous conference between Bossuet and Μ. Claude, one of the ablest divines of the reformed church in France. As a specimen of the argumentative powers of both champions, we shall select a few sentences from that part of [7:5:25]the conference which relates to the right of private judgment in matters of faith. On the one hand, Bossuet contended for an unconditional submission to the authority of the church; while, on the other, M. Claude only admitted a conditional submission to the decrees of the national assembly of his own, or those of any other church, or, in other words, that a conscientious submission could only be required if the party thought their determinations were conformable to the word of God. “Surely,” said Bossuet, “this right of individual examination, which you recognise in each individual, must be accompanied with the highest individual presumption.” “That by no means follows,” replied M. Claude; “when the synagogue declared that Jesus Christ was not the Messiah promised by the prophets, and condemned him to death, would not an individual who believed him to be the true Christ have judged better than the synagogue? Could you accuse such an individual of presumptuously believing that he understood the Scriptures better than all the synagogue ?” It is impossible to conceive a more able reply than this. It produced, as it ought, a powerful impression on the audience, and even staggered the great champion of the Catholic church. After a short pause, during which he says he offered up a mental prayer for light and direction from above, he thus addressed Μ. Claude: “You say that my assertion, that the individual who sets up his private opinion in opposition to that of the whole church must be guilty of intolerable presumption, fixes the charge of equal presumption on those who believed in Jesus Christ in opposition to the sentence of the synagogue which had pronounced him guilty of blasphemy. Most certainly my assertion proves nothing of the kind. When an individual now sets up his own private opinion in opposition to that of the whole church, he sets it up against the highest authority on earth, as the earth contains no authority to which an appeal from that authority can be made. But when the synagogue condemned Jesus Christ, there was on earth a much higher authority than the synagogue; to that authority the individual who reprobated the proceedings of the synagogue might appeal. Truth herself then visibly existed among men—the Messiah, the eternal Son of God,—He to whom a voice from above had rendered testimony, by proclaiming before the whole people that he was the well-beloved Son of God,—He who restored the dead to life, gave sight to the blind, and did so many miracles, that the Jews themselves-confessed no man had done the like before him,—He, the Jesus himself, then existed among men, and was the visible external authority to whom there was a lawful appeal from the synagogue. His authority was infallible. I hear you say that it was a contested authority. I know that it was contested; but, as a Christian, you are bound to say that no individual could reasonably or conscientiously contest it. It was not, therefore, presumption—it was duty to disobey the synagogue and believe in Christ. Bring back to me Jesus Christ in person; bring him teaching, preaching, and working miracles—I no longer want the church: but don’t take the church from me, unless you give me Jesus Christ in person. You say you have his word. Yes, certainly, we have his holy, adorable word; but what is to be done with those who understand it in a wrong sense? Jesus Christ is not present in person to set them right: they must therefore obey the church. Before Jesus Christ appeared among the Jews, they were bound to obey the synagogue. When the synagogue failed, Jesus Christ came among men to teach them all truth, and they were bound to obey his voice. When he returned to his Father, he left us his church, and we are bound to obey her voice. There is not—no, there is not on earth any visible higher authority to which you can appeal from her.” This is, no doubt, very ingeniously argued; but, considered as a piece of mere reasoning, it proceeds upon an assumption which cannot be admitted without separate proof, and it evades the case so forcibly put, by introducing the subject of time, which, in truth, formed no element in the question at issue. Further, it is evident that, mutatis mutandis, the same reasoning might have been employed by the Rabbin of the synagogue, who, on grounds precisely identical, might have argued in favour of the divine authority of the church established by Moses.

Having finished the education of the Dauphin in 1681, the king nominated Bossuet to the bishopric of Meaux, and he entered with zeal upon the duties of his new episcopate. He took a very active part in the general assembly of the church of France held the following year, and drew up the celebrated declaration of 1682 against the attempted encroachments of the see of Rome. Bossuet now directed all the energies of his powerful mind to the most important of all his controversial works, the History of the Variations of the Protestant Churches, which was first published in 1688. Gibbon in his younger years was converted to the Roman Catholic faith by perusing this work, retiring for a while, like Chillingworth, to use the expression of Dr Johnson in his Life of Dryden, into the bosom of an infallible church. It has been remarked as a singular coincidence, that although no writers were ever more opposed in sentiment than Bossuet and the author of the Decline and Fall of the Iłoman Empire, yet the latter (c. 54) adopts and aggravates the charges made by Bossuet, in his History of the Variations, of the alleged Socinian tendency of the principles of the Reformation.

During the last years of hi⅜ s life Bossuet was much occupied in the hopeless scheme of effecting a union between the Roman Catholic and Protestant churches. The negociation was first carried on with Molanus, who limited his views to a junction between the Roman Catholic and Lutheran churches, a plan which many persons considered by no means impracticable. But Leibnitz, who succeeded Molanus on the part of the Protestants, being desirous of including the whole Protestant churches in the arrangement, the negociation failed, as might have been expected, after a correspondence of ten years.

It was the fate of Bossuet to be involved in religious controversy during the greater part of his life. He entered the arena at the age of twenty-eight, and during the fifty years which followed, his pen was in constant requisition. He composed with ease, but, like Burke, he laboured hard to improve his writings, and did not cease to alter them till they issued from the press; yet the style of both is as free as if it had been quite spontaneous. Some of Bossuet’s principal writings against the Protestants have been mentioned. He was also engaged in controversies with persons of his own communion. That with the amiable Fenelon is the most conspicuous. The mystical speculations of Madame Guyon of Port Roval having found an abettor in the person of the author of r l’elemachus, in a work on the maxims of the saints, Bossuet drew up his Pelationdu Quiétisme, in which the archbishop was attacked with great severity. Fenelon published a reply, in which meekness, simplicity, and grandeur of mind were admirably blended. The writings in this controversy are amongst the finest in French literature; but Quietism being a perishable topic, these writings are now seldom read. In this contest the eagle of Meaux carried off the palm of victory.

Among the writings of Bossuet, his sermons and funeral orations are particularly to be distinguished. Of the latter, the finest is that on the death of Henrietta-Anne, the daughter of our Charles I. and wife of the duke of Orleans. As his funeral orations place him in the first class of orators, so his sermons unquestionably rank him [7:5:26]in the first line of preachers. It has been observed that Bourdaloue and Massillon alone can dispute his pre-eminence. In the opinion of Voltaire, the eloquence of Bossuet stands unrivalled. This great prelate died on the 12th of April 1704, in the 77th year of his age. Massillon and other French writers have eulogised the talents and virtues of Bossuet in terms of the highest admiration; and he is thus noticed by the Reverend Mr Eustace, in his Classical Tour: “Bossuet was indeed a great man, and one of those extraordinary minds which, at distant intervals, seem as if deputed from a superior region to enlighten and to astonish mankind. With all the originality of genius, he was free from its eccentricity and intemperance. Sublime, without obscurity—bold, yet accurate—splendid, and yet simple at the same time,—he awes, elevates, and delights his readers, overpowers all resistance, and leads them willing captives to join and to share his triumph. The defects of his style arise from the imperfection of his dialect. And perhaps he could not have given a stronger proof of the energies of his mind than in compelling the French language itself to become the vehicle of sublimity. His works, therefore, are superior to all other controversial writings in his own or any other language.” His works were collected and published soon after his decease in twelve volumes quarto. The Benedictines of St Maur published another edition; but a more complete edition, in forty-three volumes octavo, was published in 1815-20. Cardinal de Bausset wrote a history of the life of Bossuet, which was published in four volumes octavo. (a.)