“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.