It is uncertain whether the Bishop of Lavaur spent in his diocese the whole of the fifteen months which elapsed between his return from Italy in the summer of 1538 and his next special appointment. A payment made to him subsequently, as a “gift” for services rendered at Venice, Rome, and “elsewhere with the Emperor,”⁠[367] seems to indicate that, besides his residence in those cities, some temporary mission to the Imperial Court may have occurred in this interval.⁠[368] But it is probable that the greater part of the time was quietly spent in the old Cathedral city. A letter to Pole is dated thence on the 1st January, 1539.⁠[369]

We may take advantage of this interval of repose to make further acquaintance with Selve in the sphere he loved best, and in which alone he felt truly at ease.

The contrast must indeed have been complete between the worldly pomp of the Papal Court, honeycombed by restless ambitions and political intrigue, and the rural seclusion of Lavaur.

Surrounded by the sunlit vineclad country of southern France, the principal charm of the quiet little provincial town is derived from the beauty of its situation. Perched upon a rocky cliff overlooking the rushing river Agout, it commands a noble expanse of distant plain and hill. The full range of the view is obtained from a broad terrace beyond the apse of the Cathedral of St. Alain, which is finely placed on the brow of the declivity. The structure itself is of brick, a material often used in the churches of the south of France. Architecturally it shows considerable diversity of style. Nearly all the changes and additions were however made before the sixteenth century; so that the traveller who visits Lavaur to-day sees the cathedral much as it appeared in the lifetime of George de Selve.

The episcopal palace formerly stood in a line with the cathedral, and commanded the same fine view. Fancy conjures up a pleasant picture of the ancient residence of the Bishops of Lavaur in the days of its prosperity.⁠[370] Casements open to the soft and billowy southern country, silence unbroken by any sound but the lapping of the water far below, or the occasional clang of the cathedral bell, shady gardens where, in the spreading branches of ilex and mulberry-tree, the tiny green canary doubtless then, as now, found a happy home.

It was probably in these gentle surroundings that George de Selve indited the greater part of those pastoral letters and addresses through which we are chiefly acquainted with the current of his inner life. In some of them he displays a naive poetry of expression which seems to reflect the atmosphere in which they were composed; as, for instance, when he speaks of baptism as “la porte par laquelle nous sommes entrez au parc de Jesus Christ ou nous sommes maintenant, portants le nom et la marque de ses brébis.”⁠[371]

The collected works of the Bishop of Lavaur comprise spiritual discourses suited to almost every occasion, from the great public questions which were dividing the heart of Europe, down to admonitions addressed to his own household. In a few instances the titles of the various compositions give some clue to the period at which they were written. Such is the case with an exhortation “written on first arriving at his diocese, to a friend of his who had but just returned home to seek repose and leisure.”⁠[372] It is tempting to believe, nor does it seem in any way improbable, that the “friend” in question may have been Jean de Dinteville, returning to Polisy for a brief spell of “repose and leisure” after a long residence at Court. The warm tone of unconventional affection rings curiously through the pastoral admonition. “Il me semble en vous escrivant,” exclaims the writer, excusing himself for the length of his letter, “que je suis avec vous a deviser, qui m’est si grande consolation que ie n’en puis ou n’en veux trouver le bout.”⁠[373]

Placed immediately after this epistle is one addressed “to a friend grievously ill,” the language of which seems to indicate that it was intended for the same individual. The bishop writes in deep anxiety about the health of his friend. Were it not that he is detained by so many necessary causes, he would himself set out immediately to visit the invalid. “Plust a Dieu,” he exclaims, “que je peusse estre aupres de vous pour quelques iours!”

Another heading appears to denote, almost conclusively, that the discourse in question was addressed to Anne de Montmorency. The supposition is borne out by the beginning, “Monseigneur,” a mode of address which would only have been employed by the bishop towards a superior, and which was almost invariably that used towards the Connétable even by men who were themselves of high position. It is entitled: “Discours contenant le seul et vrai moyen, par lequel un serviteur favorisé et constitué en administration de son Prince, peut conserver sa félicité eternelle et temporelle, & eviter les choses qui lui pourroient l’une ou l’autre faire perdre.”⁠[374]

The doctrine inculcated in all these compositions is strictly that of the Church to which their author belonged, though there is a marked avoidance of controversial points and of any sort of exaggeration. On the vexed question of justification by faith, for instance, he points out how, if a preacher “parle au jourd’huy de vivre en obedience, ou de faire les oeuvres comme nécessaires pour la vie éternelle, une partie du monde crie après, et dict que e’est un Papiste, et un justiciaire. S’il presche le salut par Jesus-Christ, et la redemption des pechez, une autre partie du monde crie que c’est un Lutherien, et un seminateur de maulvaise doctrine....”⁠[375]

But the striking feature in all the bishop’s writings, and that which still, at the present day, breathes life and warmth into the old-world formulas, is the deep and glowing note of personal piety which rings through every line. Nowhere, perhaps, is this more apparent than in the prayers and contemplations intended for private use. The beauty of thought and fervour of expression here attained entitle these pieces to a high position in the ranks of devotional literature.

At about this time there arose a question of sending the Bishop of Lavaur to represent France at a Diet projected by the Emperor, to take place in Germany, for the pacification of religion. On some occasion, perhaps the mission of 1529, Charles appears to have been deeply impressed by the personality of Selve. He now made it an object of special request to the King of France that M. de Lavaur should attend this conference, at which the Emperor, on his part, was to be represented by the Bishop of Lunden.⁠[376]

The scheme progressed so far that Selve actually drew up part of an oration for delivery at the Diet. This fragment has been preserved to us. It is entitled: “Remonstrances adressentes aux Allemans, faictes et mises par escript par messire George de Selve, evesque de Lavaur, pour les prononcer publiquement en la diette qui se debvera tenir en Allemagne [quand il fust appellé du Roy très-chrestien a la requisition de l’Empereur pour y aller procurer la reunion d’iceulx Allemans avec l’ordre ecclésiastique].”⁠[377]

The contents of this discourse, so far as completed, exemplify once more the weight attached by the bishop to reformation of life and conduct, rather than of doctrine, as the true means of attaining religious reunion. Just as, six years before, in the “Hymns” selected for Holbein’s picture, the keeping of the Ten Commandments, aided by the guidance of the Divine Spirit, is indicated as the only path to temporal and eternal bliss, so now the same theme is reiterated with yet greater insistence. He does not, he says, desire subtle arguments, but will use simple words that the very populace can understand. Passions must be moderated, and only the divine honour thought of. Reunion must be sought in improved discipline, not in attacks upon dogma. The Papal supremacy, the body ecclesiastical, the doctrines of the Church must be upheld unimpaired. Every needful reform would certainly have come to pass had the holy examples of past times been followed in humility and sobriety. The sins of Churchmen, their avarice and ambition, have brought things to the present pass. Only by returning to the teaching of the Holy Scriptures, and of the doctrines received and upheld by the common consent of the Universal Church, can the true remedy be found for the dissensions which rend Christianity.

There follows an invitation to the Germans to return to the obedience of the Pope. But it is easy to read between the lines, even were we not told so explicitly in another composition to which there will be occasion to return later on, that, in the eyes of the Bishop of Lavaur, the chief responsibility for the divisions of the Church rested upon the shoulders of the Roman priesthood.

The scheme of despatching the Bishop of Lavaur to attend the Diet was abandoned, and the oration was left unfinished. Lazare de Baif, formerly French ambassador at Venice, was sent in his stead to Hagenau, where the conference ultimately took place. Subsequently a more important Diet was held at Ratisbon (1541), without however attaining any definite result.

The exact circumstances which led to the change of plan are not quite clear. But from a letter written by Pole to Cardinal Contarini, it would appear that the form of Diet at first proposed was regarded with disfavour in high quarters at Rome. It was considered an infringement of the Papal prerogative that the Emperor, and not the Pope, should have convened it.⁠[378] If this objection were hinted to the Bishop of Lavaur, through Pole or by other means, it would certainly have led him, as an obedient son of his Church, to renounce the execution of the plan.

Apart, however, from any motive of this kind, he seems to have had no desire for the new honour thrust upon him. He longed to remain in peace at Lavaur, after his absence in Italy, and to devote himself to the duties of his diocese.

A letter addressed by Bunel to Castelnau, Bishop of Tarbes, from Lavaur, in the spring of 1539, throws some further light upon the thoughts and plans of his protector. Castelnau, like some other acquaintances of the Bishop of Lavaur, seems to have attributed his unwillingness to take advantage of so great an opportunity for worldly distinction to undue influence on the part of Bunel, who greatly favoured a life of retirement. The latter now sent to the Bishop of Tarbes a long and somewhat tart epistle in reply to these animadversions. “My patron” (says Bunel towards the end of this letter), “when, with the approval of all worthy persons, he returned to fill his office at Lavaur, bestowed on the general welfare of mankind a benefit far greater than would be the case if, by command of the king, he were now to set forth to Germany.” The bishop must indeed go thither, if the king command it; just as Castelnau must remain in Spain, if such be the king’s pleasure. Yet it is Bunel’s desire that the bishop and himself be suffered to dwell in tranquillity at Lavaur; and that Castelnau, in like manner, be permitted to return to his diocese as soon as may be.⁠[379]

The sentiments of this letter are those of George de Selve. For the moment his desire was fulfilled. His spell of leisure was however of short duration. In the autumn of 1539 the post of resident ambassador at the Imperial Court became vacant by the death of the Bishop of Tarbes. The Emperor had but recently given so striking a proof of the high esteem in which he held the Bishop of Lavaur, that the appointment of the latter to succeed Castelnau was a foregone conclusion. A Treasury grant of the 9th October, 1539, enables us to fix the exact date at which George de Selve entered upon his new duties.⁠[380]

The talk about the Diet had indeed sunk into a secondary position, so far as Selve was concerned. Charles V., on the invitation of Francis I., and, as it were, to emphasize in the sight of the world the friendship between the two sovereigns, was about to pass from one end of France to the other, ostensibly for the purpose of visiting his rebellious subjects at Ghent. For the moment this journey absorbed general attention.

On the 27th November, 1539, the Emperor crossed the Bidassoa. The wording of Selve’s appointment specially refers to “the journey which he is about to make to Spain.” It is therefore safe to infer that, from the outset, the Bishop was of the Imperial company. The Duke of Orleans met Charles on the Spanish side of the frontier; Montmorency and the Dauphin joined him near Bayonne; the King of France awaited him at Loches,⁠[381] and escorted him towards the frontier of the Netherlands as far as Saint-Quentin. From Spain to Flanders the journey was a triumphal progress. Towns were decorated, pageants initiated, honours heaped on the Imperial guest. The common people saw in his presence the ending of the wars which had brought so much misery in their train. But the king meant something more than this by the lavish welcome he bestowed upon his rival. It was expected that Charles, as a graceful acknowledgment of his brilliant reception in France, would take that opportunity to rivet the friendship by the cession previously promised of the Duchy of Milan. It had been specially stipulated before he responded to the invitation to pass through France that no advantage should be taken of his presence to discuss political matters. The journey was to be simply one of pleasure. Francis readily agreed. But he secretly hoped that the Emperor would yield spontaneously that which he thus bound himself not to extort. The negotiations for the marriage of the Duke of Orleans with the Infanta, which had preceded the journey through France, gave him some grounds for this expectation.

Never were hopes more completely deceived. Charles passed through the country from end to end, receiving a magnificent welcome at Paris on the 1st January, 1540, without uttering a single word on the subject so eagerly awaited.

The disappointment at the French Court was great. Hope was not yet extinguished, however; and, in anticipation of the desired utterance on the part of the Emperor, the relations between the two Courts continued to be of the most amicable nature.

The Bishop of Lavaur proceeded with the Imperial party to the Netherlands. His first letter is dated from Mons, on the 27th January. It was expected that Francis would immediately pay a return visit to his recent guest. As a refinement of courtesy the King of France therefore signified to Charles that henceforth great expenditure in any visits they might mutually make to each other would be superfluous, and proposed that they should for the future come and go informally in each other’s dominions. The Emperor, so Selve reported, was ready to acquiesce in this suggestion, but added that after the manner of his reception in France he could not do otherwise, on the occasion of the king’s first visit, than follow the example that had been set to him.

At Brussels, Hellin, French resident at the court of the Queen-Regent,⁠[382] joined the diplomatic labours of the Bishop of Lavaur.⁠[383] For a considerable time the despatches sent to France were now signed by both negotiators.

Towards the middle of February the Imperial Court moved to Ghent. It was thought that, when the Emperor had settled the affairs of that city, he would have more leisure to devote to the interests of France. The French king and his suite hovered near the borders of Flanders, daily expecting that Montmorency would be sent for in order to bring the negotiations to the desired conclusion. No message came. Both Henry VIII. and Paul III.⁠[384] had expressed the conviction that Charles would never cede the Milanese. Francis himself was beginning to lose heart. His projected visit to the Netherlands dropped into the background.

Finally Charles moved. Early in March he sent for Bonvalot, his resident ambassador at the French Court, to impart to him further instructions for communication to the King of France.⁠[385] He now offered Burgundy and Flanders in substitution for the Duchy of Milan, as his daughter’s marriage portion.

On the 29th March, Selve left Ghent⁠[386] for Aumale, there to receive the king’s answer to the proposals made by the Emperor. Francis vehemently protested against the new scheme, laying stress on his rights to the Milanese territory and on the Emperor’s former promise to yield it.⁠[387] The instructions delivered to the Bishop of Lavaur on his return to Flanders relate to many other points besides that of the cession of Milan. But all knew that in this really lay the crux of the matter, and that upon it hung the success or failure of all the negotiations. Which way these were tending was abundantly evident. “As for France,” writes Wyat to Cromwell, soon after the return of the Bishop of Lavaur to Ghent, “things here are as cold as if the past were but dreams.” The changes, he continues, introduced by the Emperor into the original proposals for his daughter’s dowry have so “disdained” the French king that he is out of hope of further treating. They remind Wyat of the tale of the Welshman who, being in danger on the sea, vowed a taper as big as the mast; but when he came on land, paid a little candle to Our Lady, and “offered her to be hanged” if ever she took him on the sea again!⁠[388]

The witty Englishman had gauged the situation accurately. The negotiations dragged on for some weeks longer, each party in turn making proposals inacceptable to the other. But it soon became evident that nothing was to be gained by further prolonging them.

To the Bishop of Lavaur the coolness that ensued between the two sovereigns was a bitter disappointment. Keenly alive to the ills and sufferings that had been wrought by the long wars that had ravaged Europe, he looked to a good understanding between the King of France and the Emperor as the necessary preliminary to those ecclesiastical reforms which were the dearest object of his life. From the outset of his career his heart had been set on that reconciliation of religious differences, beneath the ægis of a regenerated and purified Rome, which for a moment had appeared a not impossible dream. How deeply he had felt the iniquity and corruption of the body ecclesiastical, which he had been called upon to witness during his mission to the Papal Court, we shall shortly see. The prospect of the interview at Nice had then created hope of a permanent peace between the two great continental powers which should afford leisure for the consideration of the affairs of the Church. This hope was, as we know, raised only to be immediately dashed by the inconclusive results of that meeting. Again, the proposal for a marriage between the Duke of Orleans and the Infanta of Spain seemed to promise a happier era. Now this prospect also was rendered abortive by the refusal of the Emperor to surrender Milan. War seemed, to those looking on, to be once more within measurable distance.

Filled with the thoughts inspired by all these circumstances, it was during the term of his embassy to the Netherlands that the Bishop of Lavaur indited the ripest and most powerful of all the compositions included in his collected works. For what occasion it was intended, or whether it was ever delivered, is unknown. It is entitled, “Discours du vrai et seul moyen de faire une bonne et perpetuelle paix entre l’Empereur et le Roy tres chrestien: faict par George de Selve, Evesque de la Vaur, estant ambassadeur dudict Roy tres chrestien, vers ledict Empereur.”⁠[389]

It shows the bishop in the plenitude of his mental powers. He has shaken off the diffidence of early youth, and speaks with the full consciousness of the authority bestowed upon him by his sacred office.

Peace and war, he says, have already been several times between these two sovereigns. War has been very fertile of evil, but peace has been sterile of good. He proposes to demonstrate how, by the use of right means, peace can be made good and fruitful for all Christianity.

The cause of war has been that these princes, instead of first serving God, have preferred their private passions and personal interests. The worst result of this has been that the lives of ecclesiastics have come to such extremity of wickedness as would have been impossible had the wars of these two princes not prevented remedy, or rather, thrust the delinquents yet further into impiety.

The leaders of the Church have brought their position and dignity into derision, rather than abandon their vices, their covetousness, their ambition. The result has been that a great part of Germany has fallen away from the Church, and that other countries threaten to follow the same course. Yet all the negligence of which ecclesiastics have been guilty, has been accompanied by a pretence of good words, and of willingness to provide against these evils.

How far these professions were sincere, may be judged by the effects.

Popes, who condemned and pursued the Lutheran heretics, had in their private surroundings openly mocked Christ and the Christian religion. Others had showed in their lives that He to whom they gave least authority was the Blessed Saviour: of Whom they willingly occupied the place, but Whom they took good care not to resemble.

Besides the irreligion of the heads of the Church, which it would be impossible to detest sufficiently, it should be considered what harm is wrought by the nature and quality of all ecclesiastical promotions; which are such that it may be said that never did the devil invent, nor could he possibly invent, a more active venom with which to poison every part of Christianity.

The Cardinals, who should hold the place of Apostles, and be, as it were, the flower of the universal Church, for many years have only owed their promotion to Papal interests or to the protection of a prince. Except a very small number who are deserving, all have reached their position by purchase, or by ambition. Bishoprics are given to them that they never visit; and from this corrupt multitude the Pope is elected by a majority of votes, generally bought with money, or princes’ favour.

The promotion to bishoprics is just as illegal. Popes and princes bestow them with equal levity, simply by favour, on unknown or unfit persons, or on children. Of such stuff are those made who have the care of souls. Only to provide for the man is thought of, not for the diocese. And whereas the Apostles and their successors proceeded to the election of bishops with so great reverence, beseeching the divine assistance: to-day, bishops are made with raillery and light talk, and with far less reflection than would be bestowed if it were a question of placing a new cook in the kitchen.

The appointments to benefices are equally bad, if not worse. The Pope gives them to any unknown person, or to a courtier who does not pretend to be a priest and will never see his cure. The poor parishes are desolate and abandoned. A trade is made of benefices, which are treated as speculations, divided, and mortgaged.

Bishops who have themselves been so lightly promoted are yet more careless in the making of priests. The bishop being generally absent from the diocese, intrusts his charge to a substitute. Out of a thousand of these there is not one who does the work from devotion, or from a desire to serve; it is merely undertaken to gain a livelihood by repeating masses. Most of these men cannot even read; especially in France, where the priests, in their vulgarity, ignorance and irreverence, surpass those of all other countries. This corruption of ecclesiastics is the greatest wound of Christendom. It has been made much worse by the wars between the two princes, because, instead of taking measures to cure it, their only thought has been to avoid giving offence to the Popes, to whose party passions they pander for their own benefit. And the Popes have availed themselves of the wars to turn everything to their private advantage.

From all this the Lutheran heresy, due in great measure to the deformities of Churchmen, has gained force and vigour....

These wars have also encouraged the Turk....

Then, what sufferings to the poor have they not caused!—spiritual neglect, bloodshed, famine, and pestilence. The poverty of the small folk is incredible throughout the dominions of these two princes....

Again, the wars have produced miscarriage of justice....

The very princes themselves, seeking each his own profit, have not found it; on the contrary, each has become impoverished.

What then is the remedy for so many and great evils?

The only true and certain remedy is the acknowledgment and confession of sin; belief in the justice of God; confidence in His mercy; and the resolve to lead amended lives. Only by penitence can these two princes hope to avoid divine condemnation. Their actions have been such that their forces are weakened, their honour trodden in the dust, their consciences stained. The only means by which they may hope to avert eternal punishment is by sorrow, repentance, and amendment.

No peace made between them has ever gone to the root of the matter. To be permanent and effective peace must rest on good and not on evil.

A long and eloquent peroration concludes this remarkable composition, and sets forth in further detail the manner of arriving at the only true peace.

This powerful indictment of the vices of the Roman hierarchy shows very clearly to how great an extent Selve anticipated the conclusions of the Council of Trent with regard to matters of Church discipline. His chosen companions, Pole, Sadoleto, Contarini,⁠[390] belonged to the same small group among the ecclesiastics, whose influence, direct or indirect, did so much to bring about the Counter-Reformation. Had the life of the Bishop of Lavaur been prolonged, it appears highly probable that he would have been among the delegates summoned to assist in the deliberations at Trent. As it was, his friend and later successor in the see of Lavaur, Pierre Danès, was twice appointed to attend that assembly as one of the representatives of France.⁠[391]