SOCIETY
108
SOCIETY
(see above: Germany), led to no permanent results,
but the sale of the mission produce came conspicu-
ously before the notice of the public at the time of the
Suppression, by the failure of Father La Valette (see,
in article above, Suppression, France). In neither
case did the money transactions, such as they were,
affect the standard of Uving in the Society itself,
which always remained that of the honesli sacer-
dotes of their time (see Dulir, op. cit. infra, pp.
582-652).
During the closing months of 1761 many other prelates wrote to the king, to the chancellor, M. de Lamoignon, protesting against the arret of the Parlement of 6 August, 1761, and testifying to their sense of the injustice of the accusations made against the Jesuits and of the loss which their dioceses would sustain by their suppression. De Ravignan gives the names of twenty-seven such bishops. Of the minority five out of the six rendered a collective answer, approving of the conduct and teaching of the Jesuits. These five bishops, the Cardinal de Choiseul, brother of the statesman, INIgr de La Roche- foucauld, Archbishop of Rouen, and Mgrs Quiseau of Nevers, Choiseul-Beaupr6 of Chalons, and Cham- pion deCice of Auxerre, declared that "the confidence reposed in the Jesuits by the bishops of the kingdom, all of whom approve them in their diocese, is evidence that they are found useful in France", and that in consequence they, the writers, "supphcate the king to grant his royal protection, and keep for the Church of France a society commendable for the service it renders to the Church and State and which the vigi- lance of the bishops may be trusted to preserve free from the evils which it is feared might come to affect it ". To the second and third of the king's questions they answer that occasionally individual Jesuits have taught blameworthy doctrines or in\-aded the jurisdiction of the bishops, but that neither fault has been general enough to affect the body as a whole. To the fourth question they answer that "the author- ity of the general, as it is wont to be and should be exercised in France, appears to need no modification; nor do they see anything objectionable in the Jesuit vows". In fact, the only point on which they differ from the majority is in the suggestion that "to take away all difficulties for the future it would be well to solicit the Holy See to issue a Brief fixing precisely those limits to the exercise of the general's authority in France which the maxims of the kingdom require".
Testimonies hke these might be multiplied indef- initely. Among them one of the most significant is that of Clement XIII, dated 7 January, 1765, which specially mentions the cordial relations of the Society with bishops throughout the worhl, precisely when enemies were plot ting for the suppression of the order. In his books on Clement XIII and Clement XIV de Ravignan records the acts and letters of many bishops in favour of the Jesuits, enumerating the names of nearly 200 bishops in every part of the world. From a secular source the most noteworthy testimony is that of the French bishops when hostility to the Society was rampant- in high places. On 15 Novem- ber, 1761, the Comte de Florenlin, the minister of the royal household, bade Cardinal de Luynes, the Arch- bishop of Sens, convoke tlic l)i.shops then at Paris to investigate the following ])()ints: (1) The use which the Jesuits can \>v in France, and the advantages or evils whi(^h nuiy be cxikm-IccI to attend their dis- charge of the different functions committed to them. (2) The manner in which in their teaching and practice the Jesuits conduct themselves in regard to opinions dangerous to the personal safety of sover- eigns, to th(- doctrine of the French clergy contained in the Declaration of 1782, and in regard to the Ultra- montane opinions generally, i'.i) The conduct of the Jesuits in regard to the subordination due to bishops and ecclesiastical superiors, and us to whether
they do not infringe on the rights and functions of
the parish priests. (4) What restriction can be
placed on the authority of the General of the Jesuits,
so far as it is exercised in France. For eUciting the
judgment of the ecclesiastics of the kingdom on the
action of the Parlement, no questions could be more
suitable, and the bishops convoked (three cardinals,
nine archbishops, and thirty-nine bisliops, that is
fifty-one in all) met together to consider them on 30
November. They appointed a commission consisting
of twelve of their number, who were given a month
for their task and reported duly on 30 December.
Of these fifty-one bishops, forty-four addressed a
letter to the king, dated 30 December, 1761, answer-
ing all the four questions in a sense favourable to the
Society and giving under each head a clear statement
of their reasons.
To the first question the bishops reply that the "Institute of the Jesuits ... is conspicuously consecrated to the good of religion and the profit of the State". They begin by noting how a succession of popes, St. Charles Borromeo, and the ambassadors of princes, who with him were present at the Council of Trent, together with the Fathers of that Council in their collective capacity, had pronoimced in favour of the Society after an experience of the services it could render; how, though in the first instance there was a prejudice against it in France, on account of certain novelties in its constitutions, the sovereign, bishops, clergy, and people had, on coming to know it, become firmly attached to it, as was witnessed by the demand of the States-General in 1614 and 1615 and of the Assembly of the Clergy in 1617, both of which bodies wished for Jesuit colleges in Paris and the provinces as "the best means adapted to plant religion and faith in the hearts of the people". They refer also to the language of many letters-patent by which the kings of France had authorized the various Jesuit colleges, in particular that of Clermont, at Paris, which Louis XIV had wished should bear his own name, and which had come to be known as the College of Louis-le-Grand. Then, coming to their own personal experience, they bear witness that "the Jesuits are very useful for our dioceses, for preaching, for the guidance of souls, for implanting, preserving, and renewing faith and piety, by their missions, congregations, retreats, which they carry on with our approbation, and under our authority". WHience they conclude that "it would be difficult to replace them without a loss, especially in the provincial towns, where there is no university".
To the second question the bishops reply that, if there were any reality in the accusation that the Jesuit teaching was a menace to the fives of sovereigns, the bishops would long since have taken measures to restrain it, instead of entrusting the Society with the most important functions of the sacred ministry. They also indicate the source from which this and similar accusations against the Society had their origin. "The Calvinists", they say, "tried their utmost to destroy in its cradle a Society whose princi])al object was to combat their errors . . . and disseminated many publications in which they singled out the Jesuits as professing a doctrine which menaced the lives of sovereigns, because to accuse them of a crime so capital was the surest means to destroy them; and the prejudices against them tlms aroused had ever since been seized upon greedily by all who had had any interested motives for object- ing to the Society's existence (in the country)." Tlie bishojis add that the charges against the Jesuits which were being made at that time in so many WTitings with which the country was flootled were but rehashes of what had been spoken and written against them throughout the jireceding century and a half.
To the third question they re])ly that the Jesuits have no doubt received numerous privileges from the
