Between these parties no point of doctrine was involved, [Footnote:  The well-known relation of the Jansenist movement to Gallican liberties was not such that the Gallican party accepted Jansenist theology.  The Jesuits upheld papal infallibility and, in general, the Ultramontane position.  The Jansenists were opposed to the Jesuits, but Gallicanism was one thing and Jansenist theology another.] but in the sphere of government there exists a frontier between Church and State along which many wars of argument can be waged—­at times with some display of force.  The Mass, Purgatory, the Saints, Confession, and the celibacy of the priest, all meant as much to the Gallican as to the Ultramontane.  Nor did the Pope’s headship prove a stumbling-block in so far as it was limited to things spiritual.  The Gallican did, indeed, assert the subjection of the Pope to a General Council, quoting in his support the decrees of Constance and Basel.  But in the seventeenth century this was a theoretical contention.  What Louis XIV and Bossuet strove for was the limitation of papal power in matters affecting property and political rights.  The real questions upon which Gallican and Ultramontane differed were the appointment of bishops and abbots, the contribution of the Church to the needs of the State, and the priest’s standing as a subject of the king.

Frontenac was no theorist, and probably would have written a poor treatise on the relations of Church and State.  At the same time, he knew that the king claimed certain rights over the Church, and he was the king’s lieutenant.  Herein lies the deeper cause of his troubles with the Jesuits and Laval.  The Jesuits had been in the colony for fifty years and felt that they knew the spiritual requirements of both French and Indians.  Their missions had been illuminated by the supreme heroism of Brebeuf, Jogues, Lalemant, and many more.  Their house at Quebec stood half-way between Versailles and the wilderness.  They were in close alliance with Laval and supported the ideal and divine rights of the Church.  They had found strong friends in Champlain and Montmagny.  Frontenac, however, was a layman of another type.  However orthodox his religious ideas may have been, his heart was not lowly and his temper was not devout.  Intensely autocratic by disposition, he found it easy to identify his own will to power with a defence of royal prerogative against the encroachments of the Church.  It was an attitude that could not fail to beget trouble, for the Ultramontanes had weapons of defence which they well knew how to use.

Having in view these ulterior motives, the acrimony of Frontenac’s quarrel with Laval is not surprising.  Rightly or wrongly, the governor held that the bishop was subservient to the Jesuits, while Colbert’s plain instructions required the governor to keep the Jesuits in check.  From such a starting point the further developments were almost automatic.  Laval found on his return that Frontenac had exacted from the clergy unusual and excessive honours during church services.  This furnished a subject of heated debate and an appeal by both parties to the king.  After full consideration Frontenac received orders to rest content with the same honours which were by custom accorded the governor of Picardy in the cathedral of Amiens.