uit
Father this winter (1672) purposely and without need, at which he had a
week before invited everybody to be present. He gave expression in this
sermon to seditious proposals against the authority of the king, which
scandalized many, by dilating upon the restrictions made by the bishop
of the traffic in brandy.... I was several times tempted to leave the
church and to interrupt the sermon; but I eventually contented myself,
after it was over, with seeking out the grand vicar and the superior of
the Jesuits and telling them that I was much surprised at what I had
just heard, and that I asked justice of them.... They greatly blamed the
preacher, whose words they disavowed, attributing them, according to
their custom, to an excess of zeal, and offered me many excuses, with
which I condescended to seem satisfied, telling them, nevertheless, that
I would not accept such again, and that, if the occasion ever arose, I
would put the preacher where he would learn how he ought to speak...."

On the news of the words which were pronounced in the pulpit at
Ville-Marie, M. de Frontenac summoned M. de Fenelon to send him a
verified copy of his sermon, and on the refusal of the abbe, he cited
him before the council. M. de Fenelon appeared, but objected to the
jurisdiction of the court, declaring that he owed an account of his
actions to the ecclesiastical authority alone. Now the official
authority of the diocese was vested in the worthy M. de Bernieres, the
representative of Mgr. de Laval. The latter is summoned in his turn
before the council, where the Count de Frontenac, who will not recognize
either the authority of this official or that of the apostolic vicar,
objects to M. de Bernieres occupying the seat of the absent Bishop of
Petraea. In order not to compromise his right thus contested, M. de
Bernieres replies to the questions of the council "standing and without
taking any seat." The trial thus begun dragged along till autumn, to be
then referred to the court of France. The superior of St. Sulpice, M. de
Bretonvilliers, who had succeeded the venerable M. Olier, did not
approve of the conduct of the Abbe Fenelon, for he wrote later to the
Sulpicians of Montreal: "I exhort you to profit by the example of M. de
Fenelon. Concerning himself too much with secular affairs and with what
did not affect him, he has ruined his own cause and compromised the
friends whom he wished to serve. In matters of this sort it is always
best to