Unigenitus. Constitution in the form of a bull which in 1713 condemned the book by Father Quesnel, entitled Réflexions morales sur le Nouveau Testament. It was proclaimed in Rome by Pope Clement XI. This bull begins with the word unigenitus , hence its name. We are interested in its history and shall follow the historian of the century of Louis XIV in telling it: Father Quesnel, an Oratorian, was a friend of the famous Arnauld [2] and stayed with him in his retreat to the last moment of his life. As early as 1671 he composed a book of pious reflections on the New Testament which contains a few maxims that could be taken to be favorable to Jansenism. But these are lost among such a large number of maxims which are saintly and imbued with persuasive religious fervor and the work was received with universal approbation. The spirit of goodness is manifest throughout this work, but only those who look for it will find any evil. When it was first written several bishops praised it highly and confirmed this praise when the author had given it its last touches. When the Abbé Renaudot, one of the most learned men of France, was in Rome in the first year of the pontificate of Clement XI, he went one day to see the Pope, who had a liking for learned men and was one himself. He found him reading the book by Fahter Quesnel. "This," the Pope said to him, "is an excellent book. We do not have anyone in Rome who can write like that. I would like to bring the author here." Yet this same Pope later condemned the book.

One of the French prelates who gave the most sincere approbation to the book by Father Quesnel was the Cardinal de Noailles, Archbishop of Paris. He declared himself its patron when he was bishop of Châlons and so the book was dedicated to him. This Cardinal was a man of great virtue and learning, the gentlest and most peace-loving of men. He protected Jansenists without being one himself and had little love for the Jesuits, without wishing them any harm or being afraid of them.

The Jesuit Fathers were very influential from the time when Father de la Chaise, as spiritual adviser to the king, had in fact become the head of the Gallican Church. Father Quesnel, who feared the Jesuits, sought refuge in Brussels together with the learned Benedictine Gerberon, a priest called Brigode, and several others who belonged to the same faction. After the death of the famous Arnauld he became the leader of the Jansenists and, like Arnauld, enjoyed the position of reigning over a secret domain that was independent of any sovereign, of ruling over consciences, and of being the soul of a faction composed of enlightened minds.

Soon the Jesuits, who were more powerful and more widely represented than his faction, ferreted out Father Quesnel in his lonely refuge. They implicated Philip V, then still master of the Netherlands, in their persecution of Quesnel, just as they had implicated Louis XIV in their persecution of Quesnel's teacher Arnauld. They obtained an order from the king of Spain to have these hermits arrested. Quesnel was put in the prisons of the archbishopric of Malines. A nobleman who thought that the Jansenist party would handsomely reward him if he freed their leader broke through the walls and effected the escape of Quesnel, who retired to Amsterdam. He died there in 1719 at a very advanced age, after having helped found a few Jansenist churches in Holland, an insignificant flock that decreases daily. When he was arrested all his papers were seized. Since these were found to contain all the indications of a regular party, it was easy to lead Louis XIV to believe that they were dangerous.

The king was not sufficiently informed to know that empty ideas and speculations collapse of their own accord if they are left to their useless activity. To make questions of state out of them was to give them an importance they did not possess. Once the author had been dealt with as a seditious person, it was not difficult to have the book of Father Quesnel declared offensive. The Jesuits incited the king himself to ask Rome to condemn the book. This meant in effect condemning the Cardinal de Noailles who had been its most zealous patron. It was expected, and with justification, that Pope Clement XI would humble the archbishop of Paris: one has to remember that when Pope Clement XI was Cardinal Albani, he had effected the publication of a book by his friend the Cardinal de Sfondrate, which was entirely Molinist, and that Noailles had been the one to denounce this book. It was natural to expect that Albani, now that he was pope, would take at least as strong measures against the approval given Quesnel's book as were taken against the approval of Sfondrate's book.

In this, people were not mistaken. Around 1708 Pope Clement XI issued a decree against Quesnel's book, but at that moment the state of temporal events prevented the success of this spiritual affair. [3] The court was dissatisfied with Clement XI who had recognized the Archduke Charles as king of Spain after he had already recognized Philip V. Invalidating points were found in his decree, it was not accepted in France; the quarrel died down and was not revived until the death of Father de la Chaise, the king's confessor, a kindly man who always kept the door open to reconciliation and treated the Cardinal de Noailles with circumspection because the latter was an ally of Madame de Maintenon.

The Jesuits had the right to name the king's confessor, a right they held among almost all Catholic princes. This prerogative is a consequence of their rule in which they forego all high positions in the Church; what their founder instituted out of humility has become a source of power. The older Louis XIV became, the more the position of confessor became an office of importance. This position was given to Father le Tellier, the son of a public prosecutor in Vire in lower Normandy, a brooding, zealous, inflexible man who hid his violent nature under an impassive exterior. He did as much harm as he could possibly have done in this position, where it is only too easy to instill the ideas that one wishes and to destroy whomever one hates. He had personal insults to avenge: the Jansenists had succeeded in having Rome condemn one of his books on Chinese religious ceremonies. He was personally on bad terms with the Cardinal de Noailles and he knew no moderation in any matter. He stirred up the entire French Church by drawing up, in 1711, missives and pastoral letters, which the bishops were supposed to sign. He sent them accusations against the Cardinal de Noailles to which they had only to affix their name. In worldly matters such machinations are punished; here they became public knowledge and were nevertheless successful.

The conscience of the king was greatly disturbed by what his confessor told him, and he also felt his authority insulted by the idea that there existed a rebellious faction. In vain did the Cardinal de Noailles ask the king to grant him justice in these iniquitous mysteries, his confessor managed to convince the king that these were only human means designed to bring about the triumph of things divine. Since in fact the confessor was defending the authority of the pope and the dignity of the Church, the entire situation essentially favored him. The cardinal took his case before the Dauphin, the Duc de Bourgogne, but found him unfavorably disposed because of the influence of the letters and friends of the archbishop of Cambrai. [4] Nor could the cardinal obtain any greater support from Madame de Maintenon who scarcely had any opinions of her own and whose only concern was to conform to those of the king.

The cardinal-archbishop, being himself oppressed by a Jesuit, deprived all Jesuits, except for a few who were exceptionally sensible and moderate, of the powers of preaching and confessing. His office gave him the dangerous right to prevent Father le Tellier from confessing the king, but he did not dare irritate his sovereign to such a degree and he respectfully left the king in the hands of his enemy. "I fear," he wrote to Madame de Maintenon, "that I am showing too much submissiveness to the king in giving power into the hands of the man least worthy of it. I pray to God to make the king aware of the peril to which he exposes himself in entrusting his soul to a man of this character."

When everyone is embittered, both sides can only engage in a course of action that has disastrous consequences. The partisans of Father le Tellier, bishops who hoped for a cardinal's hat, made use of the royal authority to kindle these sparks that could have been extinguished. Instead of imitating Rome, which had several times imposed silence on both sides, instead of disciplining a priest and guiding the cardinal, instead of prohibiting all these quarrels as if they were duels and constraining all priests, like the nobles, to be useful without being dangerous, in a word, instead of forcing both sides to submit to the highest authority, which was upheld by reason and by all the magistrates, Louis XIV thought it right to solicit personally the famous Constitution, which filled the remainder of his life with bitterness.

Father le Tellier and his faction sent to Rome one hundred and three propositions they wanted condemned. The Holy Office condemned a hundred and one; the bull was issued in September 1713. Its appearance provoked opposition from almost everyone in France. The king had asked for it in order to forestall a schism, yet this is what it almost brought about. There was a general outcry because, among those hundred and one propositions there were some which seemed to everyone to express the most innocent meaning and the purest morality. An assembly of a large number of bishops was called together in Paris; forty accepted the bull for the sake of peace but at the same time provided explanations of it to allay the doubts of the public.

The acceptance by itself was sent to the pope and the laymen were given the modifications. In this manner they intended to satisfy the king, the pontiff, and the multitude. But the Cardinal de Noailles and seven other bishops who supported him refused to accept either the bull or these rectifications. They wrote to the pope to ask His Holiness himself for rectifications. This was an insult, which they offered him most respectfully. The kind did not permit it; he prevented the letter from being published, sent the bishops back to their dioceses, and forbade the cardinal to appear at court.

Persecution brought the cardinal-archbishop new esteem from the public. There occurred a veritable split among the bishops, among the entire clergy, and the religious orders. Everyone admitted that the basic tenets of religion were not at stake, yet there existed a spiritual civil war, as if the question at issue were the overthrow of Christianity. Both sides brought all their political resources into play, as in the most worldly of disputes.

These resources were used to make the Sorbonne accept the Constitution. The majority was against it and yet it was registered at the Sorbonne. The ministry could hardly issue enough lettres de cachet by which it sent those who were opposed into prison or exile.

The bull had been registered by the parlement with the reservation that this edict would not interfere with the ordinary rights of the crown, the liberties of the Gallican Church, and the power and jurisdiction of the bishops. But obedience to the bull continued to be challenged by public outcry. The Cardinal de Bissi, one of the most ardent defenders of the bull, confessed in one of his letters that it could not have been received with greater insults in Geneva than it was in Paris.

The public was particularly up in arms against the Jesuit, Le Tellier. Nothing provokes us more than a member of the clergy who has become powerful. We see in his power a violation of his vows, and if he misuses this power he is considered loathsome. In exploiting his influence Le Tellier was presumptuous enough to suggest that the Cardinal de Noailles should be deposed by a national council. Thus a man of religion used his king, his penitent, and his religion to further his revenge. In spite of all this I have very good reasons for believing that he acted in good faith; such are the lengths to which people carry their blindness when they are impelled by their opinions and their zeal!

The council was supposed to remove from office a man who had become the idol of Paris and France because of the purity of his conduct, the gentleness of his character, and even more so because of the persecution he had undergone. In preparation for the council, Louis XIV was persuaded to have the parlement register a declaration to the effect that any bishop who had not unreservedly accepted the bull would either have to subscribe to it or would be prosecuted as a rebel by the attorney general.

This edict was drawn up by the Chancellor Voisin, secretary of state for war, a harsh and despotic man. D'Aguesseau, the attorney general, was more versed in the laws of the kingdom than the Chancellor Voisin and, imbued at that time with the courage of mind that youth gives us, he refused categorically to take responsibility for such a legal document. The président of the parlement , De Mesme, pointed out to the king the future consequences of the decree. The matter was dragged out at length. The king was dying and these unfortunate dissensions disturbed his last days. In his weakened condition his ruthless confessor kept on importuning him to complete an undertaking that would only tarnish his memory. The king's attendants were so indignant that they twice refused Father le Tellier access to the king's chamber, and when they did, entreated him not to speak to the king about the Constitution. The prince died and everything changed.

Once the Duc d'Orléans, as regent of the kingdom, had overturned the entire system of government of Louis XIV and replaced the offices of the secretaries of state by councils, he set up a conseil de conscience  [5] with the Cardinal de Noailles as president. Father le Tellier was sent into exile; he had become the object of public loathing and was little loved by his fellow priests.

Those bishops who were opposed to the bull appealed to some future Church council, even though this might never be convened. So too did the Sorbonne, the parish priests of the diocese of Paris, and entire religious congregations. The last to make his appeal was the Cardinal de Noailles in 1717, but at first he did not want to make it public; it was printed against his wishes. The Church of France remained split into two factions, the accepters and the refusers. The accepters consisted of the hundred bishops who had given their agreement under Louis XIV, as well as the Jesuits and the Capuchins. The refusers consisted of fifteen bishops and the whole nation. The accepters claimed the support of Rome, their opponents the support of the universities, the parlements , and the French people. Volume upon volume, letters upon letters were printed, each side calling the other schismatic and heretical.

An archbishop of Reims, Mailly, who was a strong and effective supporter of Rome, put his signature to two tracts which the parlement ordered burnt by the public executioner. When the archbishop learned of this he ordered a Te Deum sung in order to thank God for having been insulted by schismatics. God rewarded him and he was made a cardinal. When a bishop of Soissons was treated in the same manner by the parlement , he pointed out to this body that it had no jurisdiction over him, even for the crime of lese-majesty. Thereupon he was condemned to pay a fine of ten thousand livres, but the regent would not let him pay for fear, as he said, that this bishop too would be made a cardinal.

Rome sent protest upon protest, endless time was taken up in negotiations, there were appeals and counterappeals, all this on account of a few passages that are forgotten today, from the book of an octogenarian priest who lived on charity in Amsterdam.

The financial craze  [6] had more to do than one would think with restoring peace to the Church. The public rushed so madly to traffic in shares and, stimulated by this bait, there was such a general outburst of greed that those who still spoke of Jansenism and of bulls found no one who would listen to them. Paris now paid no more attention to these controversies than to the war that was being fought on the borders of Spain. [7] The unbelievably large fortunes being amassed and the extreme excesses of luxury and indulgence in pleasure silenced the ecclesiastical quarrels. Pleasure succeeded where Louis XIV had failed.

The Duke d'Orléans [i.e., the regent] took advantage of this situation to call together the French hierarchy. This was to his political advantage, for he feared that at some moment he might find united against him Spain, the pope, and a hundred bishops.

It was necessary to persuade the Cardinal de Noailles not only to accept the Constitution he considered scandalous, but also to retract the appeal he considered legitimate. It was necessary to obtain more from him than Louis XIV, his former benefactor, had vainly asked of him. The Duke d'Orléans was to find the greatest opposition in the parlement , which he had exiled to Pontoise. Nevertheless he overcame all obstacles. A body of doctrine was formulated that was almost entirely satisfactory to both sides. The Cardinal de Noailles had to give his word that he would finally accept the bull. The Duke d'Orléans himself went to the Grand Conseil  [8] together with the princes and peers in order to have an edict registered that commanded acceptance of the bull, deletion of the appeals, unanimity, and peace.

The parlement was humiliated because declarations, which it had the right to receive, had been brought before the Grand Conseil; and, in addition, it was under threat of being transferred from Pontoise to Blois. It registered what the Grand Conseil had registered, but still included the customary reservations concerning the safeguarding of the laws of the kingdom and the freedoms of the Gallican Church.

The cardinal-archbishop, who had promised to retract as soon as the parlement obeyed, now saw himself forced to keep his word. His pastoral letter of retraction was posted on August 20, 1720.

From that time on everything referred to in France as Jansenism, Quietism, bull, or theological dispute lost noticeably in importance. A few of the bishops who had appealed were the only ones to remain obstinately attached to their opinions.

Under the ministry  [9] of the Cardinal de Fleury an attempt was made to extirpate the last traces of this faction by deposing one of the most obstinate prelates. Soanin, the elderly bishop of the small town of Sénès, was chosen for this object lesson, a man who was as pious as he was inflexible, and who moreover had neither relatives nor influence.

In 1728 he was condemned by the provincial council of Ambrun, suspended from his functions of bishop and priest, and exiled by the court to Auvergne when already past eighty. This harsh treatment provoked some fruitless protests.

A residue of fanaticism continued to exist only among a small part of the common people of Paris, around the grave of the deacon Pâris, [10] and the Jesuits themselves seemed to be swept along in the downfall of Jansenism. Now that their blunted weapons no longer had any adversary to fight against, they lost the influence at court that Le Tellier had misused. The bishops whom they had formerly had in their power now made no distinction between them and other religious orders and, having formerly been humbled by them, now took their turn at humbling the Jesuits. The parlements made them feel more than once what they thought of them, by condemning some of their writings, which could have been ignored. At that time the university was beginning to offer good literary studies and to give an excellent education, and thus deprived the Jesuits of a good number of their students. To reconquer their former ascendancy the Jesuits had to wait until time might provide them with men of genius and favorable opportunities.

It would be very useful for those who are infatuated with all these quarrels to look at the general history of the world: when one observes so many different nations, customs, and religions, one sees how small a role is played in the world by a Jansenist and a Molinist. This makes one blush for one's frenzied attachment to a faction that is lost amidst the multitude and the vastness of things.

Notes

1. [On Malesherbes and the history of publication of the Encyclopédie , see the Introduction.]

2. [Antoine Arnauld (1612–1694), the foremost Jansenist theologian.]

3. [An allusion to the War of the Spanish Succession (1701–1714).]

4. [François de Salignac de la Mothe-Fénelon (1651–1715), archbishop of Cambrai, had been the Dauphin's tutor and continued to exercise a strong influence over him. Fénelon was hostile to the Cardinal de Noailles who had been instrumental, with Bossuet, in having Fénelon's Explication des Maximes des Saints condemned by Rome.]

5. [One of the king's councils, endowed with authority over certain ecclesiastical questions.]

6. [The speculative fever produced by the système of John Law.]

7. [The war between France and Spain, in 1719–1720, caused by the conspiracy of Cellamare, the Spanish ambassador.]

8. [A court whose jurisdiction extended over the whole of France, in cases where the parlements were not considered sufficiently impartial.]

9. [1726–1743.]

10. [François de Pâris, a pious Jansenist who died in 1727. In 1731 a report that various diseases had been miraculously cured on his grave caused Parisians to rush there in such numbers that the authorities were obliged to close the cemetery.]