Part 4

“It were to have been wished, that such sagacious orders had been followed by the most rigorous execution; and that you had armed your avenging hand against such ecclesiastics as dared contemn your Majesty, and withdraw from the obedience that was due to you! But this they have dared, and the attempt has remained unpunished: their passionate zeal has no longer known any bounds; they have declared those who were not of their opinion rebels to the church, and as such unworthy of partaking of its benefits, and they have inhumanly refused them the sacraments at the point of death. These abuses have been daily increased--and how much has not religion suffered by them?

“Impiety has availed itself of disquisitions that prevailed amongst the ministers of religion, to attack religion itself.

“The uncertainty that was introduced with regard to the foundation 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.