of the legitimacy of faith, hath been the means employed by impiety
to insinuate into people’s minds its mortal poison. What advantage
hath it not derived from the melancholy circumstances wherein we
saw the holy fathers, who had passed their lives in exercising the
laborious functions of the ministry to which they were
consecrated? enlightened doctors, still more recommendable for
their piety than their understanding: pious maidens, who, in their
recluse retreat entirely engaged with God and their salvation,
passed their time in the most austere works of repentance, treated
like refractory members of the church, deprived with ignominy of
the benefits it dispensed to its children, without its being known
what truths decided by the church, these children refused to
believe, or what errors prescribed by it, they refused to condemn!
“The ostentatious philosopher, who foolishly jealous of the
divinity itself, sees with regret the homage that is paid to him,
judged this to be the favourable moment for producing his monstrous
system of incredulities.
“This system promulgated abroad, has unhappily made but too rapid
a progress. A torrent of writings, infected with these detestable
errors, rushed forth; and to complete the misfortune, they have
insensibly crept into those schools defined to form proper
defenders of faith and religion. Strange calamity for a most
christian King! Error gains ground, and is not removed; the
principal ministers of religion are employed only in exacting the
acceptance of a decree, which offering nothing certain, alarms
timid consciences by the consequences that may be drawn from it
against the salutary doctrine, and whilst they with the greatest
rigour prosecute those, who, by at least a pardonable, if not a
well grounded scruple, refuse subscribing to it; they neglect what
is essential, and let religion be shaken to its very foundation.
“The impious become more resolute, and audacity is carried to its
greatest height; and it was reserved for us to be eye-witnesses of
a public thesis being maintained without opposition, in the first
university of the christian world, whereby all the false principles
of incredulity are systematically established[A].
“Your parliament, Sire, who by the authority you have conferred
upon them, should principally attend to whatever regards the
religion of the state, are moved at the sight of so scandalous a
proceeding. They have summoned the agents of the university. The
attention of the magistrates has called the faculty back to their
duty, has awakened the zeal of the pastors; and soon after appeared
the censures of the Thesis, accompanied with the most dishonourable
sentence, with which he, who had the audacity to maintain it, was
branded[B].
“Such are the wounds that the growing schism has from its birth
given to religion. What may we not fear it has to suffer in the
sequel; and can we view it without being penetrated with
affliction? With some it will be totally destroyed, and if others
preserve it, the spirit will be entirely lost.
“Hatred, animosity, and persecution, seize upon their hearts; those
divine characters of union and charity, which distinguish the
catholic church, are no longer to be known; and religion will be
almost universally destroyed, either in the mind, or in the heart.
“But, Sire, if your parliament owe their first attention to the
interest of religion, they are equally engaged by the fidelity
they have sworn to you, to guard the preservation of those great
maxims which constitute the essence of your sovereignty.
“And how could they avoid opposing with all their might, the
progress of a scheme framed by some ministers of the church, to
erect the constitution _Unigenitus, as a rule of faith_. This
enterprize, inasmuch as it is prejudicial to religion, is contrary
to the principles of public right, upon which the independency of
your authority is founded. When this bull came into France, your
parliament acquainted Lewis XIV. with all the danger of the
condemnation which was therein pronounced against the proposition
that relates to the matter of excommunication.
“_Hence will follow_, we told him, _that unjust excommunications,
that even the menaces of an unjust censure, may suspend the
accomplishment of the most essential and indispensible duties: and
what might be the consequence? The liberties of the Gallican
church, the maxims adopted by the kingdom upon the authority of
kings, upon the independency of their crown, upon the fidelity that
is due to them from their subjects, might be annihilated, or at
least suspended in the minds of the people, solely by the
impression made on them by a menace of excommunication, though
unjust_.
“Lewis XIV. was sensible of the importance of these reflections.
The bull was not received but with such modifications, as are not
so much modifications as an absolute assertion of the condemned
proposition.
“These wise precautions, the ramparts of our liberty, judged
necessary by the late King, confirmed by your Majesty upon every
occasion, carefully repeated in the declarations you made to
establish the authority of the bull, conformable to the sentiments
of the bishops, who gave their explanations in 1744, and
corroborated by the formal decision of the Sorbonne, as they
solemnly declared it verbally, by their Syndic in 1732; how are
these to be reconciled with the eminent character that is now
wanted to be given this bull, in erecting it into _a rule of
faith_?
“Dogmas of faith are not susceptible of modification; so that
giving to the bull the qualifications or effects of a _rule of
faith_, and exacting its pure and simple acceptance upon this
foundation, is by a necessary consequence destroying the
modifications which have been opposed to it, subverting the great
principle of your absolute independence of all other power
whatever; it is endeavouring to obtain the acknowledgment of an
authority, capable of annihilating or suspending the rights of
your sovereign authority.
“Your Majesty, convinced of this truth, however favourably you may
have expressed yourself upon the bull, has never allowed it to be
denominated _a rule of faith_. All those writings which have
appeared, wherein it has been endeavoured to represent it in that
light, have been proscribed by judgments which you yourself have
given: and when your parliament represented to you in 1733, their
uneasiness at the conduct of some ecclesiastics, in various
dioceses, who appeared to give this character to the bull; your
Majesty reproached them for having foreseen that it could happen,
that the spiritual authority should desire to erect into a dogma of
faith, propositions contrary to the inviolable maxims of France.
“Your Majesty told us that such an undertaking would not revolt
less against the church of your kingdom, than against the
magistrates; and that we might have been in security by the
precautions which the bishops took in 1714, for the preservation of
maxims, with regard to the ninety-first condemned proposition.
“But, Sire, of what signification are these precautions taken by
some bishops of your kingdom, if the others do not adhere to them,
if they exact the pure and simple acceptation of the bull, if they
look upon those as out of the pale of the church who do not declare
their submission to it, without any restriction or reserve, and if
they pretend to exclude them upon this foundation from the
participation of all sacraments?
“There are few amongst them, it is true, who have openly declared
themselves, by saying, that the constitution is _a rule of faith_;
but by giving it the effects of _a rule of faith_, is not that
saying that it is a _rule of faith_? In matters of doctrine, none
but those who err in a point of faith, can be excluded the
participation of the sacraments of the church; therefore a refusal
of the sacraments to whosoever does not submit to the constitution,
is making the constitution a rule of faith.
“The condemnation that the constitution has pronounced against the
ninety-first proposition, is manifestly contrary to the great
maxims of the kingdom, and is absolutely incompatible with the
observance of these maxims. Therefore, when we see the ministers of
the church, when we see the bishops establish the constitution as a
rule of faith, we see that by a fatality, which, Sire, your
goodness could not presume, that they want to erect into dogmas the
faith of opinions, contrary to the most inviolable maxims of
France.
“They in vain protest their attachment to our liberties. Their
conduct belies the sincerity of their words: Or, if it is really
nothing more than an extravagant zeal for the bull that actuates
them, they teach us how dangerous it is for them to decide
arbitrarily in causes that may exclude the participation of the
sacraments. Their pretended zeal becomes a passion that blinds
them; prejudice shuts their eyes to the consequences of their
conduct. Add to this, that if this tyranny were once introduced, we
should soon see it by a still greater abuse, if possible, extending
itself over matters entirely foreign to the dogma, and purely
temporal. The point would not then only be what might relate to
conscience; they would make themselves arbiters of the state, and
of the form of the citizens, and would render the admission of the
sacraments just as conditional as they pleased.
“These are not vain fears that agitate us. We know but too well,
that even in this case, nothing could conquer the obstinacy of an
unjust refusal; and that neither the most respectable birth, nor
the most pure, constant, and exemplary virtue, would be sufficient
titles to claim, at the point of death, these sacred benefits, the
dispensation whereof cannot depend upon human motives, and which by
right belong to the faithful[C].
“Your parliament, Sire, strangely surprised at so many abuses,
daily committed before their eyes, have been made still more
strongly sensible of the danger, when having sent a deputation to
the archbishop of Paris, with regard to the fresh refusal of the
sacraments, by the curate of St. Etiénne du Mont; this prelate,
without making any reply, imperiously declared, that this was done
by his orders. What reflections must the mind make at such a
declaration! We shall now suppress them out of respect.
“It will be sufficient to say, that your parliament have judged it
to be their indispensable duty to act with rigour against this
curate, in order to teach the inferior ministers of the church,
that whatever orders they may have received from their superiors,
they are answerable for putting them in execution, when these
orders tend to disturb the public tranquility, and particularly
when they are liable to foment a schism, the consequences of which
cannot be considered without horror.
“May we be permitted, Sire, to supplicate you to take into
consideration the remonstrances which your parliament had the
honour of presenting you last year. You will there find it
demonstrated, that the error in the representation of a bill of
confession, which the curate of St. Etiénne du Mont alledged for
the reason of his refusal, cannot be a legal cause for refusing the
_holy viaticum_ to a dying person, and that the exaction of this
bill is only a vague pretence for refusing the sacraments to those
who are suspected of not accepting the constitution.
“May we be allowed to recal to your memory, the principles
established in the representations which your parliament made
previously to you in 1731, and 1733, upon the first refusal of the
sacraments that came to their knowledge. The _Bull Unigenitus_ is
not a rule of faith. The church alone could give it this supreme
character, and the church has not given it. This bull is even of
such a nature that it cannot be a rule of faith. It offers nothing
certain. The different qualifications it gives to the propositions
which it condemns, and this indetermination, absolutely oppose its
ever being a dogma of faith: These maxims of France, which form the
basis of our liberties, would otherwise soon be destroyed.
“Will you, then, Sire, permit the torch of schism to be lighted up
in the heart of your kingdom, on account of the acceptance that is
exacted of this bull. There is nothing more menacing to an empire,
than divisions in religious matters: They become still more fatal
when the cause is unjust. Let them not be introduced into your
kingdom, stifle them in their birth, and to that end let your
parliaments act. They alone can restore a calm, by the vigilant
exertion of their institution. A dying person may at every instant
have recourse to the magistrate, to claim the benefits that may be
inhumanly denied him.
“If you reserve to yourself the care of making provision in this
case, however favourable your intentions may be, the distance of
places, the importance of your occupations, the difficulty of
gaining access to the foot of your throne, will prevent their
effect.
“Severity will not so effectually suppress the designs that veil
the schism, as dispatch. Its progress is to be dreaded. Preachers
already arise, who endeavour to disturb the people’s minds, and
make our churches echo with their seditious sermons. If the fire
encreases, it is to be feared that the flames will spread to such a
degree, that no authority will be sufficiently powerful to stop
the conflagration.
“Let us call to mind in the history of past ages, those bills of
association; those extorted declarations in the tribunal of
penance; those scandalous sermons which spread the alarm in
timorous consciences; those bloody wars carried to such an excess,
that shook even this throne.
“Struck with dread at the sight of these great misfortunes, we
shall not cease, Sire, to rise up against all such proceedings as
tend to schism; and we shall not cease to lay before you their
shocking consequences. To prevent our acting, to stifle our voices,
we must be annihilated. And if by an event which we should consider
ourselves as almost guilty to foresee, it should happen that our
constancy to support the rights of your crown, those of the state
and of religion, we should draw upon ourselves your Majesty’s
disgrace, we should lament without altering our conduct.
“Incapable of betraying our duty, we should have nothing to offer
you in homage but our tears, till time should convince you how
advantageous it is for you, that your parliament at no period
swerve from the inviolable fidelity they owe to religion, to their
country, and to their King; and that in their archives may be found
the uninterrupted tradition of conduct and maxims, which secure the
tranquility of your kingdom, and the independance of your
sovereignty.
“Such, Sire, are the most humble and respectful remonstrances which
the counsellors in parliament assembled, have the honour of
presenting to your Majesty.
“Done in parliament, this
13th of April, 1752.
“Signed,
“DE MAUPEOU.”
This fine discourse, written with energy, did not proclaim peace, but
was, on the contrary, a declaration of war, founded in appearance upon
the exigencies of the police, and the tranquility of the state; the
spirit of party was, however, its only dictator: The parliament being
composed almost entirely of Jansenists, wanted to destroy the Molinist
cabal. Each pursued his private prejudices, and no one thought of the
advantage of the state.
The King, in answer to these representations, declared, that he should
take upon himself to punish such priests as gave offence to the state,
by refusing the sacraments, and forbad the parliament interfering in the
matter: but this court took care not to obey. So far from submitting,
they published an arret, expresly ordering the priests to ask no bills
of confession from the sick people, and to administer the sacraments to
them, without interrogating them in any shape upon the subject. As
ordonnances are generally of greater latitude than they should be, this
body, having become all at once Theologists, availed themselves of this
opportunity to forbid the preachers using certain expressions, and they
specified the terms in which their sermons should be conceived.
Idle people, who deride every thing, even the most serious affairs,
turned this arret into ridicule. The wits of Paris said that the
parliament had pared the preachers nails in such a manner, that they
could not scratch the Jansenists any more.
Such sick people as wanted to commune, purchased an arret, which they
presented instead of a bill of confession. The retailers of bon-mots
said, “That the parliament of Paris were going to establish a communion
office at Paris, where the Jansenists might furnish themselves with
each sacrament, at the rate of forty-two sols tournois, for an arret.”
The court issued another ordonnance in favour of the _Bull Unigenitus_;
but the parliament, without paying attention to it, sent forth decrees
against the priests who refused to administer. The two parties became
inveterate, by their reciprocal obstinacy.
The Dauphin’s illness, which happened at the height of this dispute,
produced some short truce. This Prince found himself indisposed, as he
retired to his apartment on the first of May, 1752, at night. His
disorder was the smallpox, as was visible from the usual symptoms. He
happily recovered from it; and the King, who was at first alarmed,
testified great joy upon this Prince’s recovery.
Louis XV. is very fond of his children; and particularly the Dauphin:
never did a father sympathise so much at the vicissitudes of his
family. He pays remarkable attention to all those who belong to him.
Whenever the Queen is the least indisposed, he flies to her apartment,
and never leaves her till she is better.
All France congratulated him upon the recovery of the presumptive heir
to the crown. Each body of the state demonstrated their joy by some
particular rejoicings, and the people displayed theirs by general
festivity.
I resolved in turn to testify my satisfaction at this happy event, by an
analogous feast; but I would do nothing without consulting the King. I
imparted to him my design, which he approved of, and my plan, which he
applauded.
Every one that has heard my name mentioned, knows that I obtained
BELLE-VUE, where I had exhausted the refinements of art to make an
agreeable receptacle for the King. These kinds of feasts must be
allegorical, otherwise they do not express the subject of the rejoicing.
My decoration represented various dens surrounded with a piece of water,
in the middle of which was seen a luminous dolphin. Several monsters
attacked it, in vomiting flames; but Apollo, who was its protector,
hurled his thunder at them from above, and a large quantity of fireworks
compleated their destruction, as well as that of their residence. The
scene then instantly changed, and became the brilliant palace of the
sun, where the dolphin re-appeared, in all its splendor, by means of a
magnificent illumination, which lasted all night.
Scarce had the Dauphin recovered from his disorder, before the
parliament and the bishops engaged a-new the attention of the court and
the city. It was the peace that gave sufficient leisure to attend to
these disputes. In time of war, they would have had other objects to
engage their attention than bills of confession. The court would have
despised such an affair; and the parliament would not have allowed it to
be mentioned.
The obstinacy of the parliament, and the stubbornness of the curates in
refusing the sacraments, increased the King’s melancholy. I endeavoured
to multiply the amusements of his private parties, in order to remove
that state of languor which business had brought upon him. I detained
him with me at night as late as I possibly could, and did not let him
retire, till I had dissipated the clouds of his mind, by every method
that I thought would produce the effect. Music was a great assistant to
me; Rameaux was very useful to me in this respect. The King had a taste
for light airs, and this musician excelled in this kind of composition,
Jelliot executed still better than Rameaux composed. He was unrivalled
in giving life to expression, and grace to sound. I may venture to say,
that this performer, by the gaiety that he spread over the King’s mind,
was often the mediator of the most important affairs of Europe.
We know that all our resolutions spring from the actual disposition of
the soul. A monarch that refuses every thing when his mind is seized
with a certain melancholy, grants every thing when this vapour is
dissipated.
This disposition, the usual effect of secondary causes, and which
derives its origin from an harmonious sound, a wink, and most frequently
from the temperature of the air, does not always pursue the rule of
justice. It is unhappy for the people to be governed by mortals subject
to a machine susceptible of every kind of impression. It would be for
the good of mankind if they were governed by angels. I often repeated,
that Lewis XV. was extremely affected by these religious disputes. I
often heard him say, he would prefer being at war with princes rather
than with Theologians, because with those the treaty of peace terminates
the quarrel; whereas with these even the spirit of reconciliation
contributes to encrease it.
Marshal Saxe formerly said to me, that if he were to have gained an
advantage over the Tartars, he would have given them quarter; but that
if he had conquered an army of Theologians, he would have exterminated
them without mercy.
A man of wit, and a great politician, was of opinion, that the
universities should be shut up, and their theses forbidden upon pain of
death. He shewed me a manuscript work, whereby he pretended to prove
that all the wars, and all the crimes that had been committed in Europe
since the establishment of christianity, derived their origin from
religious disputes.
This is easy to believe, he added, if we consider that the spirit of
contention, which springs from dogmas, spreads itself through every
class, and that it is this general spirit that forms the genius of
nations.
The war relating to the _Constitution_ still continuing,
plenipotentiaries were appointed: these were commissaries, who were to
decide, whether the curates had a right to let the King’s subjects die
without communing. The Bishops said, this was the business of a council;
but the parliament were of opinion, that the Bull Unigenitus was in
subordination to the police of the state. These commissaries assembled
very regularly; but they took care to come to no determination.
The Prince of Conti, who was always in a passion when this affair was
mentioned before him, said, it should be decided by a court martial.
To this kind of tragedy some comic scenes were united. A curate who was
compelled to administer to a sick person, said to him in a loud voice,
_I commune you by order of the parliament_. Another expressed himself
thus to a dying man: _It is in consequence of an arret of the great
chamber, that I bring you God Almighty_.
The body of the clergy, who till now had appeared neuter in the affair,
entered the lists. The bishops asked justice of the King, for the
attempt of the parliament, who interfered in what did not relate to
them; and the reason they assigned was, that only God, the Pope, the
bishops, and the curates, had the right of administering. They pretended
that the great chamber should make reparation to the archbishop of
Paris, for having accused him of favouring a schism.
The King was very far from granting them what they required, as he could
not obtain of the parliament what he asked of them. Here again it was
necessary to issue arrets, to prevent licentious writings, and order
certain books to be burnt by the hand of the hangman. These were so many
fresh attacks upon the King’s constitution, and what spread an
additional gloom over his temper, already too grave.
Of all the royal family, the King was the only one who took this matter
to heart. The Queen had accustomed herself to lay all the vicissitudes
of this world at the foot of the crucifix: the King’s daughters would
not allow the _Bull Unigenitus_ to be mentioned: the Dauphin only said
that he could not speak, but that if he were King, he should know what
he had to do; the Princes of the blood despised these disputes; the
courtiers wanted to be meddling, but they knew nothing of the matter.
It was happy for France that old Marshal Belleisle was no Theologian,
for he would have embroiled matters still more. His highest ambition was
to fathom these things; but his age and vocations did not allow him to
signalize himself upon this occasion. He nevertheless, engaged in a
dispute upon predestination, to seem as if he was acquainted with what
he was entirely ignorant of.