No. II.
The Judgment of the Bishops of France, concerning the Doctrine, the Government, the Conduct, and Usefulness of the French Jesuits.
Most Gracious Sovereign,
The noble sentiments of faith and religion, which have ever distinguished our kings, have induced your majesty, after the example of your august predecessors, to suspend the decision of an affair so closely connected with the doctrine and discipline of the church, till you had taken the advice of the bishops of your realm.
As the time your majesty was pleased to allow us for examining the points in question was very short, we applied ourselves to the task with more than ordinary diligence and assiduity; it being one of our chief duties to concur with your majesty's pious views in whatever it may please you to propose for the good of religion, or for the maintaining of good order and tranquillity in the kingdom. We have therefore examined, with all the care which the importance of the subject required, the different articles, concerning which your majesty has done us the honour to consult us, and we think it our duty to communicate our sentiments in the following manner:—
Article I. "Of what use the Jesuits may be in France: the advantages or inconveniences that may attend the various functions, which they exercise under our authority."
The end for which the Jesuits' order was first instituted being the education of youth; the ministerial labours, catechising, preaching, and administring the sacraments; the propagation of the Gospel; the conversion of infidel nations; and the gratuitous exercise of all manner of works of charity towards their neighbour; it is evident this institution is calculated both for the good of religion and the advantage of the state.
This consideration induced pope Paul III to approve the new order by the bull Regimini, 1540; and the popes, his successors, by long experience, being sensible of the great advancement of religion, owing chiefly to the labours of the Jesuits, favoured them with the most distinguishing marks of their good-will and protection. The fathers of the council of Trent call it a holy institution, and, by an extraordinary privilege, dispense with the religious of this society in the general law they had made for other orders concerning their vows. The great promoter of piety and church discipline, St. Charles Borromœus, took care to inform the fathers of that council how much he esteemed this order, and how desirous the pope was to favour those religious, on account of the visible advantages arising to the church from their zealous endeavours. The ambassadors sent by other princes to represent them in that council had the same favourable opinion of the Jesuits, as plainly appears from their proposing the establishment of these religious in Germany, as the most efficacious means to restore religion and piety in the empire.
However, it cannot be denied, but the novelty and singularity of this order, the many privileges granted them by the popes, and the great extent and generality of the exercises in which they are conversant, according to their calling, exposed them to the jealousy and opposition of other religious orders. The universities, the mendicant orders, and others, tried all means to hinder their establishment in France: your majesty's parliaments, in their remonstrances, laid open the many inconveniences, that might attend their being admitted into this kingdom: Eustace de Bellay, the then bishop of Paris, opposed them, and even the clergy of France, in their assembly at Poissy, anno 1561, expressed a diffidence and apprehension, that the Jesuits might encroach upon their rights; for, though they consented to their admission, they did it with such restrictions and limitations as then seemed proper to secure the rights and jurisdiction of the bishops.
Anno 1574, the clergy of your kingdom, having been apprised of the credit and the approbation this institution had gained in the council of Trent, in conformity to the judgment of that general assembly, declare by their deputies, upon the article concerning the profession of novices after one year's probation, that, by this rule, their intention was not any way to derogate from or to make any change in the good constitutions of the clerks of the society of Jesus, approved by the holy apostolic see.
It appears even, that the Jesuits, by their behaviour, had got the better of those prejudices, which had formerly been conceived against their order, seeing that, in the year 1610, when so great a storm was raised against them, Henry de Gondy, bishop of Paris, gives their
character in words very different from those of his predecessor, Eustace de Bellay, viz. that the order of the Jesuits was greatly serviceable both to church and state, on account of their learning, piety, and exemplary behaviour.
Hence it was, that, in the general assembly of the states, anno 1614 and 1615, both the clergy and the nobility so pressingly desired the re-establishment of the Jesuits, for the instruction of youth, in the city of Paris, and the erection of other colleges in the different towns of the kingdom: this they recommended to their deputies as a matter of the greatest concernment, desiring they would most earnestly address his majesty, in order to obtain a favourable and speedy answer; the assembly being sensible how greatly the order of the Jesuits, by their learning and industry, had contributed, and, with God's assistance, would again contribute towards the maintaining of faith and religion, the extirpation of heresies, the restoration of piety and morality, &c. Again, in the assembly of the clergy, anno 1617, we find the Jesuits' schools proposed as the most proper means to revive and imprint piety and religion in the minds of the people.
Nothing, perhaps, is better calculated to convince us how high an idea your majesty's royal predecessors had of the usefulness of this body of men, than the patents, which they were pleased to grant, for the erecting many of their colleges in your dominions: this was particularly remarkable in the letters patent, granted by your majesty's great grandfather Louis XIV, of glorious memory, for their establishment in the college of Clermont, wherein he says, that in this he had no other view than to
support, countenance, and encourage those religious in their laborious employments for the education of youth in all useful sciences, and particularly in the knowledge of whatever may concern their duty towards God, and towards those who are placed over them for the government of the people. But this he afterwards expressed in a more emphatic manner, when he was pleased to give his own august name to that college.
The Jesuits are also of great service in our dioceses, by enforcing and giving new life and vigour to piety and religion, by their sermons, their spiritual instructions, their missionary excursions, their congregations, spiritual retreats, &c., performed with our approbation and authority.
For these reasons we are persuaded, that to deprive the people of their instruction would be extremely prejudicial to our dioceses. And, in particular with regard to the education and instruction of youth, it would be a very difficult task to find persons capable of serving the public to equal advantage, especially in the country towns, where there are no universities.
The religious of other orders, who, by their vows and state of life, are not devoted to this kind of labour, as they are little conversant in the method of teaching, and strangers to that disagreeable confinement and subjection, which is inseparable from that employment, are too much taken up with the other necessary observances of their order to give that constant and due attendance, which is requisite for the education of youth.
As to other clerks regular and priests living in community, they have not a sufficient number of persons to supply the place of the Jesuits. The secular clergy,
indeed, with the allowance of the bishop, may undertake this employment: but, not having been brought up to it from their youth, they would not much relish this kind of life, nor have they equal experience or skill in the business. Add to this, that, as most of our dioceses have not near a sufficient number of priests to answer all the duties of the ministry, it would not be possible for us to fill up the places that would become vacant by the removal of the Jesuits.
Shall we then have recourse to the laity? alas! few of these are to be found of that turn of mind as willingly to embrace so laborious and disagreeable an employment as is that of teaching; fewer still, whose talents and qualifications are equal to it.
The Jesuits in France are possessed of a hundred colleges: if these were removed, where could we find a sufficient number of schoolmasters and professors of equal parts to fill up the vacancies in all these colleges? As the Jesuits make up one community and incorporated body of men, they have this peculiar advantage, that, amongst all the religious, whom they train up to this exercise, they can make choice of such as are most likely to succeed and to answer the expectation of the public; and, if any one should misbehave, in a moment's warning they can provide another in his room; an advantage not to be expected in religious orders that are not so strictly addicted to this employment; nor amongst persons, who, though otherwise duly qualified, still want numbers for the business; much less amongst laymen, who, by their state of life, are free to choose for themselves, and no way concerned about their successors.
Adhering, therefore, to the judgment of the vicars of
Christ and of the council of Trent concerning the society of Jesus, and in conformity to the testimony, which the clergy of your majesty's kingdom, the kings your august predecessors, and your whole kingdom, have given of the usefulness of the Jesuits in France, we are persuaded, that, if due care be taken to prevent any abuse, that may insinuate itself in the exercise of their functions, this religious body cannot but be of very great service both to church and state.
In our examination of the third article, we shall have the honour to present your majesty with some regulations, which we conceive to be the best adapted for preventing all such abuses.
Article II. "How the Jesuits behave in their instructions and in their own conduct, with regard to certain opinions which strike at the safety of the king's person; as likewise with regard to the received doctrine of the clergy of France, contained in the declaration of the year 1682; and in general with regard to their opinions on the other side of the Alps."
Our history informs us, that, in the infancy of the society in France, the Calvinists used their utmost endeavour to hinder the growth of a body of men raised on purpose to oppose their errors, and to stop the spreading contagion: to this end they dispersed into all parts a multitude of pamphlets, in which the Jesuits were arraigned, as professing a doctrine inconsistent with the safety of his majesty's sacred person; being well assured, that the imputation of so atrocious a crime was the shortest and securest way to bring about their ruin. These libels soon raised a prejudice against the Jesuits in
the minds of all those, who had any interest in opposing their establishment in France, and some communities even joined in the impeachment. The crimes, which are now laid to their charge, in the numberless writings, that swarm in all parts of your majesty's dominions, are no other than those which were maliciously forged and published above one hundred and fifty years ago. It is not from such libels as these, that we are to form a just idea or rational judgment of the Jesuits' doctrine or behaviour: such wild and groundless accusations did not deserve our attention, and the little notice we took of them may be a convincing proof to your majesty of the Jesuits' innocence.
And, indeed, the inviolable fidelity of the bishops of your kingdom, and their sincere attachment to the crown, is too well known to leave any room for suspecting, that they could be either so blinded as not to discover that, which, as is pretended, is visible to the whole world; or, if they had perceived it, that they should so far have forgot their duty to God, to religion, to your majesty, as to encourage such treasonable doctrine by a criminal silence, and trust the most sacred functions of the ministry to persons convicted of publicly professing the same.
We will not here pretend to refute or to give an exact account of a doctrine, which will not bear the light, and can no way be exposed to the public without danger of infection; of which we may truly say, what St. Paul said of a certain vice, "that its very name should never be heard amongst Christians." And it is with the greatest grief we see all the particulars of this damnable doctrine publicly explained in the French tongue, and purposely
dispersed in all parts of your kingdom in an infinity of libels, the reading of which has done more prejudice to your majesty's subjects than could possibly have been caused by reading the fanatic authors themselves, who have treated of that subject. We shall only observe, that, in order to render the Jesuits more odious to the public, care has been taken to hold them forth as the first broachers of a doctrine, that was published long before they had a being. Their enemies have spared no pains to confound and perplex all our ideas concerning this doctrine, jumbling together, at all events, right or wrong, truth and falsehood, in order to bring the Jesuits in guilty: they are ever urging against them a certain period of our history, which, as it equally involves all states and conditions[[121]], ought to be blotted out of our annals, and never more be mentioned amongst us.
Whatever may be objected against the foreign Jesuits Mariana, Santarel, Suarez, and Busembaum, this is most certain, that the decree of their general, Acquaviva, appeared so satisfactory to your parliament of Paris, that, in the year 1614, they desired to have the same renewed; and it is well known, that, when those books first appeared in France, the Jesuits, in their declarations to the parliaments, disowned them in so clear, precise, and express terms, as did honour to their body, and gained them the applause of the whole nation. Lastly, their behaviour in the year 1682, and the declarations, which they have lately made to us, and which they desire to have registered at the respective offices in our spiritual courts, as a lasting and authentic testimony of their loyalty and fidelity, leave no room to doubt of their abhorrence and detestation of
any doctrine or opinion that may in any wise intrench upon the safety of the sacred person of sovereigns; or of their entire acquiescence to the maxims established by the clergy of your kingdom, in the four articles of 1682.
We must likewise observe to your majesty, that the instructions of the Jesuits in our dioceses are all performed in public; innumerable persons, of all conditions, are witnesses of what they teach; and we have the honour to assure your majesty, that they never were accused at our tribunals of teaching any such doctrine as is now imputed to them. Let us inquire of those, who have been brought up in their colleges, who have frequented their missions, their congregations, their retreats, we are persuaded there is not a man in the nation, who can attest, that he ever heard them teach a doctrine contrary to the safety of your majesty's person, or to the received maxims of the kingdom. On the contrary, in justice to their character, we must all confess, that the constant theme and subject of their school exercises is to celebrate the memorable deeds and heroic actions of our monarchs, and their whole study to impress in their hearers the most dutiful sentiments of loyalty and respect towards your majesty.
Article III. "The conduct of the Jesuits with regard to their subordination to bishops; and whether, in the exercise of their functions, they do not encroach on the pastoral rights and privileges."
It cannot be denied but that, if the Jesuits were to avail themselves of the many and great privileges which, at different times, have been granted to them by the see apostolic, they could not be said to live subordinate, either to bishops or to their ecclesiastical superiors. But
we are to observe, that these privileges were granted them by a communication and participation of such as had been granted to the mendicant orders, and to the other religious, long before they came into the world; and, with regard to these, we find a decree in the explanation of their rule (art. xii, p. 447), that they are to make use of their privileges with the greatest caution and moderation, and with no other view than for the spiritual advantage of their neighbour; for, being bound by their fourth vow, immediately upon the first notice of his holiness's command, to embark, in order to preach the Gospel to the most remote and barbarous nations, these privileges become absolutely necessary in places where neither bishops nor other pastors are to be found. We may also take notice, both with regard to the bull of Paul III, and those of his successors, that there is a wide difference between their approbation of the first plan of the institute, or of the additions that were afterwards made for the perfecting of the same, and the privileges granted to that society, which are merely accessory to the institute; for these bulls, being written in the ordinary style of the court of Rome, the dispositions made by them cannot be brought into precedent, or have any other force than that which is allowed them by the pope's decretals and the laws of the kingdom, both which have long since declared, that privileges granted by the court of Rome, contrary to the jurisdiction of bishops, or derogatory to the due subordination of the faithful to their pastors, are of no effect without their consent, and, if they any way concern the state, without the approbation of the sovereign.
However, we find, even to the year 1670, that the Jesuits, as well as the other mendicant orders, used their
best endeavours to maintain these privileges, against the common law and the jurisdiction of bishops, on pretence, that the discipline of the council of Trent, which had abolished them, was not received in France. We read in the acts of our bishopricks, that attempts to this purpose were made by the Jesuits at Quimper, at Agen, at Sens, and at Rhodez, where, in conjunction with the mendicant orders, they carried on their suits at law for a long time against the bishops of those dioceses.
But since that time the Jesuits are not known to have formed any such pretensions; on the contrary, they have renounced all those privileges, which may any way seem to intrench, either on the established maxims of the kingdom, or on the liberties of the Gallican church; and, as they still persist in that renunciation, and have expressed the same, in the clearest terms, in the declaration, which they lately presented to us, nothing more can reasonably be demanded of them with regard to this article.
But to prevent any abuse, that possibly may hereafter arise, and to keep religious orders in due subjection and subordination to their ordinaries, after having examined, with all diligence, the complaints that at different times have been made by the bishops, concerning the attempts of the Jesuits, and of other religious, contrary to the rights of pastors and the episcopal jurisdiction, we have agreed on the following regulations, grounded on the canon law and the discipline of the Gallican church.
1. That the Jesuits and all other religious, who pretend to be exempted from the jurisdiction of their bishops, and to hold an immediate dependence on the see apostolic, shall not be allowed to preach or confess in our dioceses,
without having been examined by the bishop, or his vicars, or others, whom he may appoint for that purpose, and without being approved by him; which approbation he may limit or revoke, as he shall think fit.
2. That they shall not be permitted to receive children to their first communion, though they be their own scholars, without the consent of the curate or bishop of the diocese; and, during the fifteen days of Easter, they shall not hear any annual confessions without their permission.
3. That they shall send all their penitents, even their own scholars and pensioners, to receive the paschal communion in the parish church, unless they have a dispensation from the curate or bishop.
4. That they shall not confess any person that is in danger of death without advertising the curate thereof.
5. That in the missionary excursions, which they make with our consent, they shall take care that the curates be not defrauded of their dues.
6. That they shall not admit any priest, whether secular or regular, though otherwise approved, to assist them in the labour of their missions, without the express consent of the bishop.
7. In their lessons of divinity, whether public or private, they shall teach the four propositions of the French clergy, assembled 1682; and, as often as the bishop of the diocese or the archbishop shall require it, they shall be bound to let them see their books or lectures of philosophy, or of moral or scholastic divinity, which they make use of in their seminaries or other houses where they teach, either in public or private.
8. They shall not publicly defend any theses,
without having them first examined and approved by the bishop.
9. Whenever it shall seem good to the bishop, he shall be allowed to see and examine the books they make use of for the instruction of their own colleges or other houses.
10. In teaching the rudiments of the Christian religion, they shall use the catechism of the diocese where they live. In one word, the bishops shall have full inspection and superintendence over all their instructions, whether public or private.
11. They shall not gather any congregation, or set on foot any confraternity or retreat, without the consent of the bishop, who is to judge whether the faithful may not thereby be hindered from duly frequenting their parish churches, a thing so earnestly recommended by the sacred canons.
12. These congregations shall never be allowed to meet at the hours when the office or divine service is performed in the parish church; and the bishop shall regulate these meetings as he shall judge most expedient for the advancement of piety and religion in his diocese; and, when he shall think fit, may repeal any such licence before granted.
13. They shall not be allowed to publish any indulgence without having it first examined and approved by the bishop. By all which we do not intend any way to derogate from any other rights, which the French clergy may have over the Jesuits or other regulars.
14. In the exercise of the different duties of their calling they shall not encroach upon the rights of chapters, curates, universities, or any body of men, who are permitted to teach in this kingdom.
We are sensible of the great advantages that must attend the due execution of these regulations, for the maintaining of true faith and morality, for preserving the liberties of the Gallican church, and securing to bishops, chapters, universities, and to all orders of men, the invaluable possession of their rights and privileges; for which reason we humbly implore your majesty's authority and protection, which alone can give them due sanction and stability, to the end that all your subjects may teach one and the same doctrine, and, by a due subordination of all the parts, may contribute to the good order, peace, and well being both of church and state.
Article IV. "Whether it may not be convenient to moderate and set bounds to the authority which the general of the Jesuits exercises in France."
We have examined the Jesuits' institute with the greatest care and attention, as to what concerns the authority of the general, or the obligation of obedience in the subjects; and have the honour to assure your majesty, that we have found these as much limited and restrained by the Jesuits' rule as by that of any other order. For instance; parte vi, Declarat Constitut. tom. i, p. 408, it is said, Let our obedience be always most perfect, as well in the execution as in our will and judgment, performing all that is commanded with the greatest alacrity, spiritual joy, and perseverance; persuading ourselves, that all is right which is commanded; denying and rejecting, by a kind of blind obedience, any private judgment or opinion of our own to the contrary. And thus we are to behave with regard to whatever our superior may command, when
it does not appear to be any way sinful, as has been elsewhere observed by us.
Hence it plainly appears, that the Jesuits are never bound to obey their general's orders, when, by obeying him, they would be found guilty of the least sin at God's tribunal. We find, that most other religious orders, according to the stile of their rule, profess obedience to all their superiors' commands, which are not repugnant to faith or morality. But what danger can be apprehended, either to the church or state, from that obedience, which is not sinful on any account, which is neither prejudicial to religion nor hurtful to the rights or properties of any of your majesty's subjects? We may add, that this rule of obedience doth not particularly concern the general, but equally regards all other subordinate superiors, who, by virtue of their subjects' vow, have equal claim to their obedience: whence it also appears, that St. Ignatius did not think fit to vest the general with any other authority over the whole society than that which the superior of every religious community ought to have over his subjects.
Those expressions, that they are to abandon themselves to the disposition of their superior, as if they were a dead body, &c. cannot give offence to any but such as are strangers to the language of the ascetick writers, and who are not able to form an idea of any perfection or Christian accomplishment, that doth not suit with their own state and condition. We should never end were we to lay before your majesty what we find in the fathers and masters of a spiritual life, or in the rules of other religious orders, concerning this article of obedience; it may suffice to observe, that they all make use of the
like or even harder expressions; all propose the same examples and comparisons, or others to the same purpose.
But, after all, it is evident, by the fundamental law and constitution of the society, that a general congregation has a far greater power and authority over the general than he can pretend to over the society. The same general assembly, or representative body of the order, which creates him general, names also and appoints his assistants, who have a watchful eye upon his behaviour, and, when they observe any great fault in his conduct, or defect in his administration, are bound by oath to inform against him, and to denounce him to the society; and if the case be notorious and scandalous, or if there be danger in delay, the provincials or superiors of provinces may convene themselves without waiting for the summons or writs[[122]] from the assistants, and immediately proceed to the arraignment, trial, and deposition of the general[[123]],
whom also, if they judge it necessary, they may dismiss and eject out of the society. There is not, perhaps, to be found a general of any other religious body, who has so absolute and perpetual a dependence on his order; it being well known, that the general of the Jesuits has not power to dispose of the least thing in his own behalf or to his private advantage, nor can so much as command any other diet or apparel, than that which is assigned him by the society[[124]].
It is true, indeed, that the general alone can dispose of all the places and employments of the order, but this he cannot do without taking the advice of his counsel[[125]]; and nothing, perhaps, discovers the wisdom of St. Ignatius more than his having left all places of trust in his order to the free disposal of the general, by which means he has secured the subjects from that partiality and injustice which might be apprehended from their immediate and subaltern superiors, who, by the intercession and solicitation of friends, relations, or benefactors, are too often prevailed upon to prefer persons of little merit to others more deserving. He has effectually banished from his order all intrigues and cabals for the gaining of preferment, evils which are not easily guarded against, and are
often the cause of fatal divisions in communities, of scandalous law-suits, of jealousies, hatred, and the entire subversion of union, charity, and the primitive spirit of the order. St. Ignatius has, with great judgment, provided against this disorder, and secured the peace and regularity of the whole body, by stripping all the places of preferment in this society of those temporal advantages, which are commonly annexed to them in other orders, whence the most ambitious person amongst them will hardly think it worth his while to make interest for a place, which carries with it no natural allurement of ease or convenience, and has little else but the empty name of superiority to recommend it.
In an order, that was to be wholly devoted to the service of the public, it was necessary, that such a plan of government should be established as should leave no room for subjects to doubt, but that all the places and employments were given to persons the most deserving, and, according to the best rules of human prudence, the most capable of filling them to advantage. This assurance frees them from all anxiety and solicitude concerning the dispositions of superiors, either with regard to themselves or others, and they have no other concern but to comply faithfully with the duties of their institute, to perfect themselves and benefit their neighbour in that employment, which is assigned them by their superior, whose orders and appointment they respectfully embrace as the disposition of Divine Providence.
With regard to the authority of the general over the temporalities of the order, we find[[126]], that he has power
to make all kinds of contracts in behalf of the colleges and houses of the society, though he is not allowed to convert any thing to his own private use or advantage[[127]]. He cannot transfer the revenues of one college to another, nor assign any part of them for the maintenance of Profest Houses[[128]], which are not to have any rents, but are entirely to subsist upon charity. The donations, which are made to the body, without being assigned to any determinate use, are at the general's disposal[[129]], who may sell them, and annex them to any house, as he shall judge most expedient for promoting God' honour and the good
of religion; but with this caution, that, when such donations are made by persons who enter into the society, they be not alienated from the province[[130]], unless, perhaps, the great distress of some house in another province should call for immediate relief. And, with regard to places that are subject to the dominion of different princes, the general is not allowed to make any such translation of property from one territory to another, without their consent[[131]], but he can never appropriate to his own use, or make over to his relations, any part of that which is given to the society, without incurring certain danger of being deposed from his office[[132]]. Hence it is plain, that the
general is no more than a kind of steward and administrator of the goods and possessions belonging to the society, the property whereof is wholly vested in the colleges and other houses.
It doth not appear to us, that this manner of administration can be any way prejudical to the colleges of the order; neither can it with reason give umbrage to the state, or cause any distrust in the government, their general having no power to dispose of the possessions belonging to the colleges in your majesty's dominions, contrary to the laws and established customs of your kingdom; nor can it be supposed, that such an attempt would ever escape the vigilance of our magistrates, the faithful depositaries of your majesty's authority.
But it may appear dangerous to some, that so many thousands of your majesty's subjects should have a dependence upon one man, and be engaged to a foreigner by motives of conscience and inclination; and it may seem, that, in times of trouble and intestine divisions, the danger is still more to be apprehended. In answer to this objection we beg leave to observe, that, in your majesty's dominions, there are other religious orders far more numerous than the Jesuits, and who, by their vow of obedience, have no less dependence on their foreign generals; whence it is highly unreasonable, that the Jesuits should be marked out as the only object of our fears and jealousies on that account: to say the truth, there is no society or body of men in the nation, who may not give trouble to the state, and some cause of fear,
should they deviate from their duty, or forget the obedience due to their lawful superiors. Are we then immediately to suppress all these most serviceable corporations, and deprive ourselves of that which is a real good and advantage to the whole kingdom, for the apprehension of a remote and imaginary evil? The Jesuits certainly are not less bound by your majesty's laws than the rest of your subjects; and, if from things past we may be allowed to form a judgment of their future behaviour, we have little or no reason to fear any disturbance from that quarter. It is well known, that, in the year 1681, during our disputes with Rome concerning benefices, the pope's briefs were conveyed into the hands of the Jesuits in France, with express orders, both from his holiness and from their general, to disperse them immediately about the kingdom; but they, without much deliberation, on the 20th of June, produced the packet in open court, and, by their candid behaviour in that critical conjuncture, deserved that remarkable compliment from the first president, M. de Novion, that it was lucky those papers had fallen into the hands of persons of their prudence and discretion: that they had too good heads to be imposed upon, and hearts too loyal to be corrupted[[133]]. We are also assured by the general advocate, Talon, that no one could reasonably tax the Jesuits, whose behaviour on that occasion was fully justified by the bitter reproach and severe reprimand they afterwards underwent, both from the pope and their own general[[134]]. This one short passage of our history may convince us,
more effectually than all the reasonings in the world, that the Jesuits, according to their rules, do not profess any other obedience to their general than is consistent with their duty towards their king and country.
We are moreover convinced, that this obedience of the Jesuits to their general, as prescribed by their rule, and their fourth vow, by which they cannot be fully bound to the order till they have attained the age of thirty-three, are the two essential principles, and, as it were, the foundation stones, on which the whole edifice of their constitution is raised: these cannot be changed without overthrowing the whole building; neither can any alteration be made in them without forming a new constitution, very different from that to which the Jesuits have bound themselves by vow. These two fundamental articles discover to us the extraordinary wisdom of their founder, who, with great judgment and forecast, has thus provided against the growth of any dangerous irregularity in the order, and secured such a constant tenor of government, as was necessary to qualify the religious subjects for the great duties of their calling.
It was, doubtless, for these reasons, that the council of Trent so highly commended and approved of this institute: that the late pope, Benedict XIV, in the bull Devotum, anno 1746, called them most wise laws and institutions, ex præscripto sapientissimarum legum et constitutionum, &c.: that the clergy of France, anno 1574, stiled them good and sound regulations: lastly, that the great Bossuet assures us, that in this rule he discovered numberless strokes of consummate wisdom[[135]]. Which
testimonies are greatly confirmed by the example of those other religious orders, which have sprung up in the church since the first establishment of the Jesuits, whose founders have framed good part of their rule after the model of this institute.
All which things considered, we are of opinion, that no alteration can be made in the Jesuits' rule, with regard to the power and authority of the general. And your majesty will give us leave to observe, that, if it were expedient to make such a reform, it would neither be agreeable to the ecclesiastical law, nor to the avowed practice of all ages, nor in particular to the discipline of the church of France and the established maxims of your courts of parliament, to undertake an affair of this nature without the concurrence and joint consent of his holiness the supreme pastor of the church, of the bishops of France, and of a general congregation of the Jesuits: we might add, without the consent of all the professed Jesuits, as such an alteration in their dependence on their general would affect the very vitals of the order, and change the whole constitution.
For these one hundred and fifty years, our history affords one only instance (of 1681) in which this authority of their general might have been any way prejudicial to the state; and if, on that occasion, the loyalty of the French Jesuits underwent a very severe trial, it had no other effect than to convince the whole kingdom how well they deserved that honourable testimony of your parliament, that their prudence guarded them against all surprise, and their loyalty against corruption.
But nothing, perhaps, can be of greater weight in this matter than the judgment of your majesty's royal
predecessor Henry IV, of glorious memory[[136]], who, in the midst of all his troubles, when the kingdom was in the greatest ferment, and he beset by persons, who spared no pains to instil into his mind the greatest distrust of the Jesuits, desired no other security for their good behaviour than this alone, that he might have one of that body ever near his person in quality of preacher to his majesty, and that a French assistant should be established with the general at Rome.
Your majesty is still possessed of the same security; and, since we are taught by the experience of a hundred and fifty years, that this is abundantly sufficient for the purpose, there can be no need of any farther caution or new regulation; especially as the Jesuits, in the late declaration, which they had the honour to present your majesty, have assured us in the most express terms, that, if their general was to require any thing of them contrary to the laws of your kingdom or to the obedience and respect due to your majesty, they neither could nor would pay any regard to such commands; and that their vow of obedience, as it is explained in their rule, doth no way bind them to such a compliance. This so peremptory declaration of the Jesuits, and the wise dispositions of the edict in 1603, leave no room to apprehend any danger from the general's abusing his authority to the prejudice of your majesty's kingdom. We are, &c.
The cardinal de Luynes.
—————— de Gesvres.
—————— de Rohan.
The archbp. of Cambray.
——————— Reims.
——————— Narbonne.
——————— Embrun.
——————— Ausch.
——————— Bourdeaux.
——————— *.
——————— Arles.
——————— Toulouse.
The bishop of Langres.
—————— Mans.
—————— Valence.
—————— Macon.
—————— Bayeux.
—————— Amiens.
—————— Noyon.
—————— S. Papoul.
—————— Comminges.
—————— S. Malo.
—————— Die.
—————— Apollonie.
—————— S. Paul-de-Leon.
—————— Chartres.
—————— Rhodez.
—————— Sarlat.
—————— Orleans.
—————— Meaux.
—————— Arras.
—————— Blois.
—————— Metz.
—————— Angouleme.
—————— Verdun.
—————— Senlis.
—————— Angers.
—————— Digne.
—————— Autun.
—————— Vence.
—————— Evreux.
The coadjutor of Strasbourg.
The bishop of Leictoure.
—————— Troyes.
—————— Nantes.
General Agents for the Clergy.
M. l'abbé de Broglie.
M. l'abbé de Juigné.
A Copy of the Letter of the Archbishop of Paris, dated January 1, 1762.
Most Gracious Sovereign,
If, in company of the other prelates, I did not add my name to the answer which they had the honour to present your majesty, it was not that I differed in the least from their judgment as to the four articles, which your majesty was pleased to propose to their examination, concerning the usefulness, the doctrine, the conduct, and the government of the Jesuits. I am very sensible that, in point of virtue and learning, there is no bishop in the nation to whom I ought not to give the precedency; and, in this view, would willingly have subscribed after all my brother bishops: but there is a regard due to the dignity of the see, to which your majesty has graciously been pleased to call me, and I must not take a step, that may interfere with those prerogatives, which, after the example of your august predecessors, you think it your duty to maintain. No other consideration could have prevented my setting my hand to a testimony so much to the advantage of the Jesuits of your kingdom: and, whilst I have the honour to assure your majesty of my entire adherency to that solemn act, I once more beg leave to implore your justice and supreme authority in behalf of a religious body,
eminent for learning and piety, and well deserving your royal protection, for the great services, which, during the two last ages, they have rendered both to church and state.
(Signed) CHRISTOPHER,
Archbishop of Paris.