FOOTNOTES:

Drop Cap W

WE shall close this treatise with the queries, of which mention has been made above, respecting the oath which was required of the Jesuits: they are proposed in such amanner, that there seems to be no doubt, either as to the answer to be made to each, or consequently as to the part which these fathers should have taken. It appears, in the writings published on this subject by the Jansenists and the Jesuits, as if they had made it their business to deviate from the true point of view of the question. Instead of the idle declamations which have been printed on both sides, the author seems to have meant to substitute a little logick: this is the secret for abridging a number of controversies, which the rhetorick of lawyers and of mandates would perpetuate to eternity.

QUERIES.[22]

Drop Cap A

ARE not the king, or the magistrates who represent him, competent judges for deciding, whether a religious institution be conformable or contrary to the laws of the kingdom?

II.

Is it necessary that the spiritual power concur with the temporal, for this decision, which is purely civil?

III.

Did not the king’s subjects, who submitted themselves to this institution, submit thereto, on the supposition, nay, in the persuasion, that the king and the state approved thereof?

IV.

If the king, or the magistrates who represent him, having at first permitted or tolerated the institution, come afterwards to be of opinion, that it is contrary to the laws of the kingdom, would the king’s subjects, who had subjected themselves to this institution, and who took the resolution of renouncing it, wound thereby their consciences?

Does the renunciation of the institution import a renunciation of the vow ofchastityand that ofpoverty, which they had taken, and which neither the king nor the magistrates can hinder them from observing?

VI.

Is it making an attempt upon the rights of the spiritual power, to declare that their vow of obedience, (considered only in a civil light) is inconsistent with the obedience which they have vowed from their birth to their lawful sovereign; an obedience, by virtue of which they live in the territories of that sovereign, under the protection of the laws?

VII.

If the vow which they have made as subjects, be declared contrary to that which they have made as monks, is not this second vow null of itself, being destroyed by a vow more ancient and more sacred?

VIII.

If they think themselves, notwithstanding this consideration, engaged by their vow ofobedience; if they prefer a religious state to that of subjects; can, nay indeed ought not the prince, or the magistrates who represent him, to declare, that they have forfeited the rights of subjects, and oblige them to quit a state of which they refuse to be members?

IX.

Have not the professed monks, who shall renounce the institution, and who are bound besides, by their vow ofpoverty, and by the renunciation of their effects, a right to require the state to charge itself with their subsistence?

Would professed monks, who on refusing to renounce their vow ofobedience, should receive either from the court, or their friends[23], notwithstanding their vow ofpoverty, pensions much greater than is necessary for their subsistence, prove by this conduct, that they were much lessattached totheir vowthan to their General; that they refused much more through pride than through religion, to renounce the society; that they were, in a word, more Jesuits than Christians?

XI.

Ought not those professed monks, who shall renounce the institution, at the same time, in order to put out of dispute their religion and their honour, to declare the motives of attachment to their sovereign and their country, which oblige them to that renunciation, and to demand a juridical act of that declaration?

XII.

Is it necessary to require of thenon-professedmonks, any thing morethan a mere juridical declaration, that they have made no vows; and a promise of not making any?

XIII.

And with regard to those who voluntarily renounced the institution, before the arrêt, which requires the oath, is it necessary to require of them any thing else than a simple juridical declaration that they have renounced it?

XIV.

Will not the Jesuits equally embarrass the Jansenists their enemies, whether they take the oath which is required, or whether they take it not? If they take it, they deprive their inveterate enemies of the hope and the pleasure of seeing them banished;if they refuse to take it, they refute, without reply, the imputation which has been so often cast upon them, of sporting with religion and with oaths? In the first case they disconcert hatred; in the second they confound calumny. Which side ought they to take? That of disconcerting hatred, and of confounding calumny both at once, in joining to the oath, which is required of them, the declaration, the substance of which is contained in the XIth Query, and of which we shall give below the formula.

XV.

What scourge have been the disputes concerning religion, and in particular the absurd and miserable contest of Jansenism, which for upwards of ahundred years has made so many persons unhappy in one of these two parties, and which now is likely to make as many in the other!

XVI.

What a happiness, for nations and for kings, is the banner of philosophy, which by inspiring for those frivolous disputes the contempt which they merit, is the only means of preventing their becoming dangerous?

XVII.

Who is the author of these reflexions? A Frenchman, attached solely to his country, who interests himself neither forversatile grace, norvictorious delectation; who is neither of any sect, nor of any order,neither of the congregation ofmessieurs, nor of the troop of St. Médard; who has neither received money from the General of the Jesuits, nor been whipped with rods in the garrets of the Convulsionaries; who wishes that men would live in peace, and that so much hatred, excited by whims, so manyprofoundacts of knavery, occasioned bysenselessdisputes, so many evils, in short, brought about by so many follies, should teach them at last to be wise.

So be it.

A form of declaration for the professed monks.

Drop Cap I

I The undersigning, a professed monk of the late society called of Jesus, declare, that when I subjected myself to the institution and government of that society, I supposed, as an indispensable condition of that engagement, that it had the approbation of the king my lawful sovereign; his majesty having declared since, in an unequivocal manner, by the mouth of the magistrates, depositaries of his authority, the incompatibility of my vow of obedience, with that more ancient and sacred vow which I have made to my king and to my country, and findingmyself obliged to choose the one or the other of these vows, which I can no longer observe together, I think myself bound, in honour and in conscience, to hold by that which I made as a Frenchman and subject of his majesty: it is through this sole motive that I renounce living, henceforward, under the authority of the institution, and the government of the said society; not intending, however, to renounce the vow of poverty, and that of chastity, which I have made, and the observance of which no motive can forbid me; promising anew to God and to the church, as far as is necessary, to preserve the virtue of perfect continence, and to receive from those, who shall think proper to provide me with subsistence, only just what isabsolutely necessary to that very subsistence, pursuant to the precept of St. Paul. In confirmation whereof I have signed the present declaration, of which I demand the enrollment, in order to discharge, at once, without any view either of interest or human respect, what I owe to God and my king.

Done at Paris this....

A form of declaration for the non-professed Jesuits.

Drop Cap I

I The undersigning ... declare, that not being bound yet by the vows of profession to the late Society called of Jesus, and the king my sovereign having forbidden all his subjects, by the mouth of the magistrates, depositaries of his authority, to bind themselves to that institution, I promise and swear, as a good and faithful subject of his majesty, not to engage myself in the said Society, by any vow whatever. In confirmation, &c.

A form of declaration for the ex-Jesuits.

Drop Cap I

I The undersigning declare, that in the month of ... and year of ... before the arrêt of the court of ... which requires of the late Jesuits the renunciation of that institution, I made voluntarily that renunciation, of which the pieces hereunto annexed are vouchers.

FINIS

FOOTNOTES:[1]See the Jesuit writers of the life of St. Ignatius.[2]Father Boyer the Theatin, afterwards Bishop of Mirepoix, and since preceptor to the children of France.[3]We speak here in general; for it is agreed that there have been, and are still, in the other orders, some men of merit.[4]We know from a very respectable and very sure hand, that this father of the church was some months since at Petersbourg, where he wrote, for bread, panegyricks on a great princess, who pays to his eulogies the same regard as to his writings. Nothing more was wanting to the disgrace of those who set him to work, but to leave him, as they do, in want, and obliged to go to beg abjectly, at six hundred leagues, his subsistence.[5]M. de Voltaire, in his excellent catalogue of the writers of the age of Louis XIV.[6]They were very far from this in 16.... when they forbid all the subjects of the congregation from teaching Jansenism and Cartesianism.[7]See Bayle’s dictionary under the word Petau. See also the Longueruana, Part I. p. 86.[8]The safety of the people is the supreme law.[9]The reader, perhaps, will not be displeased to see what a philosopher of much wit, and full of contempt besides for all theological quarrels, thought of this charming doctrine. “Can it be possible to give to the wordfreedoma meaning so forced as that which the Jansenists give it? We are now, according to them, like a ball on a billiard-table, indifferent whether it move to the right or to the left; but at the very time that it moves to the right, it is maintained to be still indifferent as to its moving to that side; for this reason, that it might have been driven to the left. Such is what they have the presumption to call in usfreedom; a freedom purely passive, which signifies only the different use which the Creator may make of our wills, and not the use which we can make of them ourselves without his help. What fantastic and fallacious language!”Lettre de Mr. de la Motte, à Mr. de Fenelon.[10]Lib. vii. Fabl. 16.[11]Mr. de la Chalotais, in hisEssay on Education, presented to the parliament of Bretagne.[12]The late cardinal de Tencin.[13]Le Dépit amoureux, Act first, Scene last.[14]It is said that the Jesuits, out of respect to the Queen and Dauphin, refused to undertake the spiritual guidance of La Pompadour.Appendixto the XXXII. Vol. of theMonthly Review. p. 499.[15]Fontaine, Lib. VII. Fable iii.[16]Æneid I.[17]Mélanges de littérature, d’histoire & de philosophie, par M. D.... Tom. IV. p. 364.[18]And thou too, my dear Brutus!It is assured that this satyrist gave to the wordBrutusa more malicious interpretation than we pretend to approve of.[19]The reader knows thathegirasignifiesflight, orexpulsion.[20]This is what a thousand French have heard said in England, in Germany, and even at Rome.[21]It is assured, that the day after the expulsion of the Jesuits, the Convulsionaries began to foretell it. It is thus that they have always prophesied; and what is very surprising, they have never been mistaken.[22]These queries appear to have been written in the interval between the arrêt, which ordains the Jesuits to take the oath, and the arrêt which banished them. It was thought they might be useful, if any unforeseen circumstance should seem one day to require the Jesuits to be forced to renounce expressly the institution.[23]As the Jesuits of Versailles, and some others of the principal have done.

[1]See the Jesuit writers of the life of St. Ignatius.

[2]Father Boyer the Theatin, afterwards Bishop of Mirepoix, and since preceptor to the children of France.

[3]We speak here in general; for it is agreed that there have been, and are still, in the other orders, some men of merit.

[4]We know from a very respectable and very sure hand, that this father of the church was some months since at Petersbourg, where he wrote, for bread, panegyricks on a great princess, who pays to his eulogies the same regard as to his writings. Nothing more was wanting to the disgrace of those who set him to work, but to leave him, as they do, in want, and obliged to go to beg abjectly, at six hundred leagues, his subsistence.

[5]M. de Voltaire, in his excellent catalogue of the writers of the age of Louis XIV.

[6]They were very far from this in 16.... when they forbid all the subjects of the congregation from teaching Jansenism and Cartesianism.

[7]See Bayle’s dictionary under the word Petau. See also the Longueruana, Part I. p. 86.

[8]The safety of the people is the supreme law.

[9]The reader, perhaps, will not be displeased to see what a philosopher of much wit, and full of contempt besides for all theological quarrels, thought of this charming doctrine. “Can it be possible to give to the wordfreedoma meaning so forced as that which the Jansenists give it? We are now, according to them, like a ball on a billiard-table, indifferent whether it move to the right or to the left; but at the very time that it moves to the right, it is maintained to be still indifferent as to its moving to that side; for this reason, that it might have been driven to the left. Such is what they have the presumption to call in usfreedom; a freedom purely passive, which signifies only the different use which the Creator may make of our wills, and not the use which we can make of them ourselves without his help. What fantastic and fallacious language!”Lettre de Mr. de la Motte, à Mr. de Fenelon.

[10]Lib. vii. Fabl. 16.

[11]Mr. de la Chalotais, in hisEssay on Education, presented to the parliament of Bretagne.

[12]The late cardinal de Tencin.

[13]Le Dépit amoureux, Act first, Scene last.

[14]It is said that the Jesuits, out of respect to the Queen and Dauphin, refused to undertake the spiritual guidance of La Pompadour.Appendixto the XXXII. Vol. of theMonthly Review. p. 499.

[15]Fontaine, Lib. VII. Fable iii.

[16]Æneid I.

[17]Mélanges de littérature, d’histoire & de philosophie, par M. D.... Tom. IV. p. 364.

[18]And thou too, my dear Brutus!It is assured that this satyrist gave to the wordBrutusa more malicious interpretation than we pretend to approve of.

[19]The reader knows thathegirasignifiesflight, orexpulsion.

[20]This is what a thousand French have heard said in England, in Germany, and even at Rome.

[21]It is assured, that the day after the expulsion of the Jesuits, the Convulsionaries began to foretell it. It is thus that they have always prophesied; and what is very surprising, they have never been mistaken.

[22]These queries appear to have been written in the interval between the arrêt, which ordains the Jesuits to take the oath, and the arrêt which banished them. It was thought they might be useful, if any unforeseen circumstance should seem one day to require the Jesuits to be forced to renounce expressly the institution.

[23]As the Jesuits of Versailles, and some others of the principal have done.

Transcriber's Note:Minor typographical errors have been corrected without note. Others are noted below.Ambiguous hyphens at the ends of lines were retained.CORRECTIONS:Page 18: “usefull” changed to “useful.” (… useful and respectable in Paraguai….)p. 25: “he” → “be.” (… his heart should be carried after his death;)p. 27: “Richlieu” → “Richelieu.” (Henry IV. or rather cardinal Richelieu….)p. 78: “repuputation” → “reputation” ( … the greatest merit and reputation.)p. 86: “co-temporaries” → “contemporaries (… admired by his contemporaries.)p. 110: “expresly” → “expressly.” (… without having been condemned expressly.)p. 110: “partiticular” → “particular.” (… one proposition of father Quesnel’s in particular.)p. 126: “ n” → “in.” (… whose crime in their eyes….)p. 156: “expresly” → “expressly.” (… whom he points out expressly….)p. 160” “powerfull” → “powerful.” (… a society, lately so powerful….)p. 201: “pitifull” → “pitiful.” (… fathers of so pitiful a posterity.)p. 204: “stiled” → “styled.” (… make themselves be styled his heirs….)Variants unchanged:New comers (p. 18) and new-comers (p. 145).Dogmatises (p. 55) and dogmatizes (p. 206).Expense (p. 72) and expence (p. 124).Arch-bishop (pp. 117, 125, 167) and archbishop (pp. 115, 116, 181).

Transcriber's Note:

Back to Index Next