in Latin that to Richard Morgan, in 1701, succeeded Johannes Armandus Dubourdieu, Monspelliens: Gallus, et Ecclesiae Gallo-Sabandiens: apud Londinenses Pastor. This church, during Du Bourdieu’s incumbency, was served by his curate, the Rev. W. Corke, who afterwards succeeded him in the benefice. He printed a number of sermons and pamphlets; I make a note of those which I have seen; bibliographers having confused uncle and nephew, and having attributed the writings of both en masse to one ideal person whom they name John.
He preached in 1707 a sermon on Ex. ix. 16, in which he was supposed to allude to Louis XIV. as a Pharaoh to the oppressed Protestants of France. This discourse was published, and the consequence was that he had the honour to be singled out by the French king, at the time of the Peace of Utrecht, as the one victim whose punishment would soothe his chagrin on being prevailed upon to release so many Protestant slaves from the galleys. Mr. Prior wrote to Lord Bolingbroke that the king of France desired that young Du Bourdieu might be punished. Bolingbroke communicated with the Queen, who answered to the effect, that “that was none of her business, but the Bishop of London’s.” The French Ambassador, Le Duc d’Aumont presented a written memorial to Her Majesty, who formally referred it to the Bishop. On the 17th May 1713 the pastor received a summons, which he cheerfully obeyed, the French Savoy Church being under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan Bishop; and on the 19th, accompanied by four elders, he went to Fulham Palace, and the Bishop showed him the memorial, which was as follows:—
“Whatever reason the King may have hitherto had, not to abate his just severity against those of his subjects who have been condemned to the galleys for contravening his orders in matters of religion, His Majesty, nevertheless, in consideration of the Queen of Great Britain, has given his orders to release the least guilty, and to let them enjoy the grace from which they were more and more excluded by the conduct of the refugees, and particularly of their ministers, towards His Majesty. They made the punishment of some private persons the concern of the whole body, and her Britannic Majesty, moved by their clamours and their representations, was pleased to intercede in their behalf with the King; but they will certainly render themselves unworthy of that favour which she has procured for them, if they continue to talk with so little regard of a Prince to whom they owe profound respects. But what appearance is there of keeping them in duty, if those very persons, whose position obliges them to give others an example of moderation, launch out even in public into passionate and injurious discourses, and (if one may say so) into blasphemies? It is a matter of importance to inflict an exemplary punishment on those who have abused the ministry of the pulpit, to disperse their malice, bitterness, and animosity against the King. Whereas nobody has expressed himself with more rage and scandal than Mr. Armand du Bourdieu, Minister of the Church of the Savoy, whose whole religion is reduced into declamations against France and against the person of the King (he thinking by that means to gain the esteem of parties and to conceal his scandalous life) — and forasmuch as such a turbulent temperas his, being a man moved by the spirit of party and faction, cannot but be disagreeable to the Queen, to the consistory, and to the nation, who have already set a mark upon him, — therefore the punishment of Armand du Bourdieu is the only thing that Monsieur le Duc d’Aumont takes the liberty to demand from Her Britannic Majesty. At a time when the King, out of his sole complaisance for Her Majesty, is induced to give his subjects the marks of such extraordinary clemency, it is right that she should suppress calumny and irreligion, covered with the mask of apostolic zeal, and should, by the punishment of one man only, impose silence on others as to the sacred person of a Prince so strictly united to Her Britannic Majesty by the ties of blood.”
The pastor and elders examined the memorial, and after Mr. Pujolas had read it, the Bishop asked Mr. Du Bourdieu, “What he had to say to it?” He answered, “That, the memorial containing only general complaints, he had nothing to say, except that during the war he had, after the example of several prelates and clergymen of the Church of England, freely preached against the common enemy and persecutor of the Church; and the greatest part of his sermons being printed with his name affixed, he was far from disowning them; but since the proclamation of the Peace he had not said anything that did in the least regard the person of the French King.” The Bishop made him repeat the words, “since the proclamation of the Peace,” and asked the elders, “Is that true?” They answered, “It is, my lord.” The Bishop said that he would make his report to the Queen. Mr. Du Bourdieu requested that a copy of the memorial might be granted to him, and the Bishop promptly complied. The memorial, with an account of the interview with the Bishop, was printed both in French and English. No further steps were taken.
The sermon most calculated to offend Louis XIV. was one entitled, “The Silence of the Believer in Affliction,” which was printed both in French and English. The
