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 Fénelon to send him a
verified copy of his sermon, and on the refusal of the abbé, he cited
him before the council. M. de Fénelon 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 Bernières, 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 Bernières occupying the seat of the absent Bishop of
Petræa. In order not to compromise his right thus contested, M. de
Bernières 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 Abbé Fénelon, for he wrote later to the
Sulpicians of Montreal: "I exhort you to profit by the example of M. de
Fénelon. 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 remain neutral."

Frontenac was about to be blamed in his turn. The governor had obtained
from the council a decree ordering the king's attorney to be present