“Among the divines of the Confession of Augsburg, I always placed M. Molanus, in the first rank, as a man, whose learning, candour and moderation made him one of the persons, the most capable I have known, of advancing the NOBLE PROJECT OF REUNION.  In a letter, which I wrote to him some years ago, by the Count Balati, I assured him, that, if he could obtain, the general consent of his party, to what he calls, his Private Thoughts, Cogitationes Privatae, I promised myself, that, by joining to them, the remarks, which I sent to him, on the Confession of Augsburg, and the other Symbolic writings of the Protestants, the work of the Reunion would be perfected, in all its most difficult and most essential points; so that well disposed persons might, in a short time, bring it to a conclusion.”

The passage is so important, that it is proper to present it to the reader in Bossuet’s own words.

“Parmi les Theologiens de la Confession d’Ausbourg, j’ai toujours mis, au premier rang, M. l’Abbe de Lokkum, comme un homme, dont le scavoir, la candeur, et la moderation le rendolent un des plus capables, que je connusse, pour avancer CE BEAU DESSEIN.  Cela est si veritable, que j’ai cru devoir assurer ce docte Abbe, dans la reponse que je luis fis, il y a deja, plusieurs annees, par M. le Comte Balati, que s’il pouvoit faire passer ce qu’il appelle ses Pensees Particulieres Cogitationes Privatae, a un consentement suffisent, je me promettois qu’en y joignant les remarques, que je lui envoyois, sur la Confession d’Ausbourg, et les autres ecrits Symboliques des Protestans, l’ouvrage de la Reunion seroit acheve dans ses parties les plus difficiles et les plus essentielles; en sorte qu’il ne faudroit a des personnes bien disposees, que tres peu de tems pour la conclure[087].”

Dom. de Foris, the Benedictine Editor of the new edition of the works of Bossuet and the Abbe Racine, Abrege de l’Histoire Ecclesiastique[088] are very severe in their censures of the conduct of Leibniz in the negotiations for the Reunion, and attribute its failure to his presumption and duplicity.  To the writer of these pages, it appears clear, that Leibniz was sincere in his wishes for the reunion; and that, if he occasioned its failure, it was unintentionally.  While the business was in the hands of Bossuet, and Molanus, it was a treaty, not for the reunion of the Roman Catholic church, and all Protestant churches, but for the reunion of the Roman Catholic church, and the Lutheran church; and to this, Molanus’s endeavours to reconcile differences, were directed.  Leibniz, whose principles in religion, were much wider, than those of Molanus, seems to have wished, that the negotiation should be placed, on a broader basis, and extended to a reunion of the church of Rome, with every denomination of Christians.  This gave the negotiation a different direction, and in a great measure, undid what had been, so happily begun.  We have seen, that, to the very last, Bossuet, called out for Molanus, and entertained great hopes, that, if the matter were left to Molanus, and him, the noble Project of Reunion, would be crowned with success.  There is no part of Bossuet’s literary or active life, in which he appears to greater advantage, or in a more amiable light, than on this occasion.