Part 620

"Father Antoine Lavalette, 'procureur' of the Jesuit Missions in the Antilles, resided in that capacity at St. Pierre in the island of Martinique. He was a man of talent, energy, and enterprise; and, following an example by no means uncommon in the Society, he had been for many years engaged in mercantile transactions on an extensive scale, and with eminent success. It was an occupation expressly prohibited to missionaries; but the Jesuits were in the habit of evading the difficulty by means of an ingenious fiction. Lavalette was in correspondence with the principal commercial firms in France, and particularly with that of Lioncy Brothers and Gouffre, of Marseilles. He made frequent consignments of merchandise to their house, which were covered by bills of exchange, drawn in Martinique and accepted by them. For a time the traffic proceeded prosperously; but it so happened that upon the breaking out of the Seven Years' War, several ships belonging to Lavalette, richly freighted with West Indian produce, were captured by the English cruisers, and their cargoes confiscated. The immediate loss fell upon Lioncy and Gouffre, to whom these vessels were consigned," and they were driven to bankruptcy, the General of the Society of Jesus refusing to be responsible for the obligations of his subordinate, Father Lavalette. "Under these circumstances the creditors determined to attack the Jesuit community as a corporate body," and the latter were so singularly unwary, for once, as not only to contest the claim before the Parliament of Paris, but to appeal to the constitutions of their Society in support of their contention, that each college was independent in the matter of temporal property, and that no corporate responsibility could exist. "The Parliament at once demanded that the constitutions thus referred to should he examined. The Jesuits were ordered to furnish a copy of them; they obeyed. … The compulsory production of these mysterious records, which had never before been inspected by any but Jesuit eyes, was an event of crucial significance. It was the turning-point of the whole affair; and its consequences were disastrous." As a first consequence, "the court condemned the General of the Jesuits, and in his person the whole Society which he governed, to acquit the bills of exchange still outstanding, together with interest and damages, within the space of a year from the date of the 'arrêt.' In default of payment the debt was made recoverable upon the common property of the Order, excepting only the endowments specially restricted to particular colleges. The delight of the public, who were present on the occasion in great numbers, 'was excessive,' says Barbier, 'and even indecent.'" As a second consequence, the Parliament, on the 6th of August, 1761, "condemned a quantity of publications by the Jesuits, dating from the year 1590 downwards, to be torn and burnt by the executioner and the next day this was duly carried out in the court of the Palais de Justice. Further, the 'arrêt' prohibited the king's subjects from entering the said Society; forbade the fathers to give instruction, private or public, in theology, philosophy, or humanity; and ordered their schools and colleges to be closed. The accusation brought against their books was … that of teaching 'abominable and murderous doctrine,' of justifying sedition, rebellion, and regicide. … The Government replied to these bold measures by ordering the Parliament to suspend the execution of its 'arrêts' for the space of a year. The Parliament affected to obey, but stipulated, in registering the letters-patent, that the delay should not extend beyond the 1st of April, 1762, and made other provisions which left them virtually at liberty to proceed as they might think proper. The Jesuits … relied too confidently on the protection of the Crown. … But the prestige of the monarchy was now seriously impaired, and it was no longer wise or safe for a King of France to undertake openly the defence of any institution which had incurred a deliberate sentence of condemnation from the mass of his people." In November, 1761, a meeting of French prelates was summoned by the Royal Council to consider and report upon several questions relative to the utility of the Society of Jesus, the character of its teaching and conduct, and the modifications, if any, which should be proposed as to the extent of authority exercised by the General of the Society. The bishops, by a large majority, made a report favorable to the Jesuits, but recommended, "as reasonable concessions to public opinion, certain alterations in its statutes and practical administration. … This project of compromise was forwarded to Rome for the consideration of the Pope and the General; and Louis gave them to understand, through his ambassador, that upon no other conditions would it be possible to stem the tide of opposition, and to maintain the Jesuits as a body corporate in France. {1893} It was now that the memorable reply was made, either by the General Ricci, or, according to other accounts, by Pope Clement XIII. himself—Sint ut sunt, aut non sint'; 'Let them remain as they are, or let them exist no longer.'" Even had the proposed reform been accepted, "its success was problematical; but its rejection sealed the fate of the Order. Louis, notwithstanding the ungracious response from Rome, proposed his scheme of conciliation to the Parliament in March, 1762, and annulled at the same time all measures adverse to the Jesuits taken since the 1st of August preceding. The Parliament, secretly encouraged by the Duc de Choiseul, refused to register this edict; the king, after some hesitation, withdrew it; and no available resource remained to shield the Order against its impending destiny. The Parliaments, both of Paris and the Provinces, laid the axe to the root without further delay. By an 'arrêt' of the 1st of April, 1762, the Jesuits were expelled from their 84 colleges in the ressort of the Parliament of Paris, and the example was followed by the provincial tribunals of Rouen, Rennes, Metz, Bordeaux, and Aix. The Society was now assailed by a general chorus of invective and execration. … The final blow was struck by the Parliament of Paris on the 6th of August, 1762. … The sentence then passed condemned the Society as 'inadmissible, by its nature, in any civilized State, inasmuch as it was contrary to the law of nature, subversive of authority spiritual and temporal, and introduced, under the veil of religion, not an Order sincerely aspiring to evangelical perfection, but rather a political body, of which the essence consists in perpetual attempts to attain, first, absolute independence, and in the end, supreme authority.' … The decree concludes by declaring the vows of the Jesuits illegal and void, forbidding them to observe the rules of the Order, to wear its dress, or to correspond with its members. They were to quit their houses within one week, and were to renounce, upon oath, all connection with the Society, upon pain of being disqualified for any ecclesiastical charge or public employment. The provincial Parliaments followed the lead of the capital, though in some few instances the decree of suppression was opposed, and carried only by a small majority; while at Besançon and Douai the decision was in favour of the Society. In Lorraine, too, under the peaceful government of Stanislas Leczinski, and in Alsace, where they were powerfully protected by Cardinal de Rohan, Bishop of Strasburg, the Jesuits were left unmolested. … The suppression of the Jesuits—the most important act of the administration of the Duc de Choiseul—was consummated by a royal ordonnance of November, 1764, to which Louis did not give his consent without mistrust and regret. It decreed that the Society should cease to exist throughout his Majesty's dominions; but it permitted the ex-Jesuits to reside in France as private citizens, and to exercise their ecclesiastical functions under the jurisdiction of the diocesans. … Almost immediately afterwards, on the 7th of January, 1765. appeared the bull 'Apostolicum,' by which Clement XIII. condemned, with all the weight of supreme and infallible authority, the measure which had deprived the Holy See of its most valiant defenders. … The only effect of the intervention of the Roman Curia was to excite further ebullitions of hostility against the prostrate Order. Charles III. of Spain, yielding, as it is alleged, to the exhortations of the Duc de Choiseul, abolished it throughout his dominions by a sudden mandate of April 2, 1767. … The Pope precipitated the final catastrophe by a further act of imprudence. The young Duke of Parma, a prince of the house of Bourbon, had excluded the Jesuits from his duchy, and had published certain ecclesiastical regulations detrimental to the ancient pretensions of the Roman See. Clement XIII., reviving an antiquated title in virtue of which Parma was claimed as a dependent fief of the Papacy, was rash enough to launch a bull of excommunication against the Duke, and deprived him of his dominions as a rebellious vassal. All the Bourbon sovereigns promptly combined to resent this insult to their family. The Papal Bull was suppressed at Paris, at Madrid, at Lisbon, at Parma, at Naples. The Jesuits were expelled from Venice, from Modena, from Bavaria. The Pontiff was summoned to revoke his 'monitorium'; and on his refusal French troops took possession of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin, while the King of Naples seized Benevento and Pontecorvo. On the 16th of January, 1769, the ambassadors of Spain, France, and Naples presented a joint note to the Holy Father, demanding that the Order of Jesus should be secularised and abolished for ever. Clement, who had suffered severely from the manifold humiliations and reverses of his Pontificate, was overwhelmed by this last blow, from the effects of which he never rallied. He expired almost suddenly on the 2nd of February, 1769."

_W. H. Jervis, History of the Church of France, volume 2, chapter 10._

ALSO IN: _T. Griesinger, The Jesuits, book 6, chapter 6, and book 7, chapter 1._

JESUITS: A. D. 1769-1871 Papal suppression and restoration of the Order.

"The attitude of the Roman Catholic Courts was so threatening, and their influence with the Conclave so powerful, that Lorenzo Ganganelli was selected [1769] for the triple crown, as the man best suited for their purposes. Belonging to the Franciscans, who had ever been antagonistic to the Jesuits, he had been a follower of the Augustinian theology, and was not altogether free from Jansenism. The Jesuits even went so far as to pray publicly in their churches for the conversion of the Pope. The pontificate of Clement XIV. has been rendered memorable in history by the Papal decree of July 21, 1773, which in its policy adopted the maxim of Lorenzo Ricci, the inflexible General of the Jesuits, 'Sint ut sunt, aut non sunt'—Let us be as we are, or let us not be! That decree declared that, from the very origin of the Order, sorrow, jealousies, and dissensions arose, not only among its own members but between them and the other religious orders and their colleges. After further declaring that, urged as its head by a sense of duty to restore the harmony of the Church, and feeling convinced that the Society could no longer subserve the uses for which it was created, and on other grounds of prudence and governmental wisdom, he by his decree abolished the Order of Jesuits, its offices, houses, and institutes. … The other religious orders at Rome were jealous that Jesuits should have been the confessors of Sovereigns at Westminster, Madrid, Vienna, Versailles, Lisbon, and Naples. The influences of the Dominicans, the Benedictines, and the Oratorians were accordingly exercised for their suppression. … The Papal Bull 'Dominus Redemptor noster' was at first resisted by the Jesuits, and their General, Lorenzo Ricci, was sent to the Castle of St. Angelo. {1894} Bernardine Renzi, a female Pythoness, having predicted the death of the Pope, two Jesuits, Coltrano and Venissa, who were suspected of having instigated her prophecies, were consigned to the same prison. All that follows relating to the fate of Ganganelli is of mere historic interest; his end is shrouded in mystery, which has been as yet, and is likely to continue, impenetrable. According to the revelations of Cardinal de Bernis, Ganganelli was himself apprehensive of dying by poison, and a sinister rumour respecting a cup of chocolate with an infusion of 'Aqua de Tofana,' administered by a pious attendant, was generally prevalent throughout Europe; but the time has long since passed for an inquest over the deathbed of Clement XIV."

_The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany (Fraser's' Magazine, May, 1873)._

"All that follows the publication of the brief—the death of Ganganelli, the fierce and yet unexhausted disputes about the last year of his life, and the manner of his death—are to us indescribably melancholy and repulsive. … We have conflicting statements, both of which cannot be true—churchman against churchman—cardinal against cardinal—even, it should seem, pope against pope. On the one side there is a triumph, hardly disguised, in the terrors, in the sufferings, in the madness, which afflicted the later days of Clement; on the other, the profoundest honour, the deepest commiseration, for a wise and holy Pontiff, who, but for the crime of his enemies, might have enjoyed a long reign of peace and respect and inward satisfaction. There a protracted agony of remorse in life and anticipated damnation—that damnation, if not distinctly declared, made dubious or averted only by a special miracle:—here an apotheosis—a claim, at least, to canonization. There the judgment of God pronounced in language which hardly affects regret; here more than insinuations, dark charges of poison against persons not named, but therefore involving in the ignominy of possible guilt a large and powerful party. Throughout the history of the Jesuits it is this which strikes, perplexes, and appals the dispassionate student. The intensity with which they were hated surpasses even the intensity with which they hated. Nor is this depth of mutual animosity among those or towards those to whom the Jesuits were most widely opposed, the Protestants, and the adversaries of all religion; but among Roman Catholics—and those not always Jansenists or even Gallicans—among the most ardent assertors of the papal supremacy, monastics of other orders, parliaments, statesmen, kings, bishops, cardinals. Admiration and detestation of the Jesuits divide, as far as feeling is concerned, the Roman Catholic world, with a schism deeper and more implacable than any which arrays Protestant against Protestant, Episcopacy and Independency, Calvinism and Arminianism, Puseyism and Evangelicism. The two parties counterwork each other, write against each other in terms of equal acrimony, misunderstand each other, misrepresent each other, accuse and recriminate upon each other, with the same reckless zeal, in the same unmeasured language—each inflexibly, exclusively identifying his own cause with that of true religion, and involving its adversaries in one sweeping and remorseless condemnation. To us the question of the death of Clement XIV. is purely of historical interest. It is singular enough that Protestant writers are cited as alone doing impartial justice to the Jesuits and their enemies: the Compurgators of the 'Company of Jesus' are Frederick II. and the Encyclopedists. Outcast from Roman Catholic Europe, they found refuge in Prussia, and in the domains of Catherine II., from whence they disputed the validity and disobeyed the decrees of the Pope."

_Clement XIV. and the Jesuits (Quarterly Review, September, 1848.)_

"The Jesuit Order remained in abeyance for a period of forty-two years, until Pius VII. on his return to Rome, after his liberation from the captivity he endured under Napoleon I. at Fontainebleau, issued his brief of August 7, 1814, 'solicitudo omnium,' by which he authorised the surviving members of the Order again to live according to the rules of their founder, to admit novices, and to found colleges. With singular fatuity the Papal Edict for the restoration of the Jesuits, contradicting its own title, assigns on the face of the document as the principal reason for its being issued the recommendation contained in the gracious despatch of August 11, 1800, received from Paul, the then reigning Emperor of the Russias. We have the histories of all nations concurring that Paul was notoriously mad, and within six months from the date of that gracious despatch he was strangled in his palace by the members of his own Court, as the only possible means, as they conceived, of rescuing the Empire from his insane and vicious despotism. In return probably for the successful intercession of Paul, Thadeus Brzozowski, a Pole by birth but a Russian subject, was elected the first General of the restored order. We find a striking comment on his recommendation in the Imperial Ukase of his successor, the Emperor Alexander, by which, in June 1817, he banished the Jesuits from all his dominions. Spain, the scene of their former ignominious treatment, was, under the degraded rule of the Ferdinandian dynasty, the first country to which they were recalled; but they were soon again expelled by the National Cortes. Our limits here confine us to a simple category of their subsequent expulsions from Roman Catholic States: from France in 1831, from Saxony in the same year, from Portugal again in 1834, from Spain again in 1835, from France again in 1845, from the whole of Switzerland, including the Roman Catholic Cantons, in 1847, and in 1848 from Bavaria and other German States. In the Revolution of 1848, they were expelled from every Italian State, even from the territories of the Pope; but on the counter Revolution they returned, to be again expelled in 1859 from Lombardy, Parma, Modena and the Legations. They have had to endure even a more recent vicissitude, for, in December 1871, a measure relating to the vexed question, the Union of Church and State, received the sanction of the National Council (Bundesrath) of Switzerland, by which the Jesuits were prohibited from settling in the country, from interfering even in education, or from founding or re-establishing colleges throughout the Federal territories. They have thus within a recent period received sentence of banishment from almost every Roman Catholic Government, but they still remain in Rome."

_The Jesuits and their Expulsion from Germany (Fraser's Magazine, May, 1873)._

{1895}

JESUITS: A. D. 1847. The question of Expulsion in Switzerland. The Sonderbund and the war of religions.

See SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1803-1848.

JESUITS: A. D. 1880. The law against Jesuit schools in the French Republic.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1875-1889.

JESUITS: End--------

JESUS, Uncertainty of, the date of the birth of.

See JEWS: B. C. 8-A. D. 1.

JEU-DE-PAUME, The Oath at the.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1789 (JUNE).

JEUNESSE DOREE, of the Anti-Jacobin reaction in France.

See FRANCE: A. D. 1794-1795 (JULY-APRIL).

JEWS: Start--------

JEWS. The National Names.

There have been two principal conjectures as to the origin of the name Hebrews, by which the descendants of Abraham were originally known. One derives the name from a progenitor, Eber; the other finds its origin in a Semitic word signifying "over," or "crossed over." In the latter view, the name was applied by the Canaanites to people who came into their country from beyond the Euphrates. Ewald, who rejects this latter hypothesis, says: "While there is nothing to show that the name emanated from strangers, nothing is more manifest than that the nation called themselves by it and had done so as long as memory could reach; indeed this is the only one of their names that appears to have been current in the earliest times. The history of this name shows that it must have been most frequently used in the ancient times, before that branch of the Hebrews which took the name of Israel became dominant, but that after the time of the Kings it entirely disappeared from ordinary speech, and was only revived in the period immediately before Christ, like many other names of the primeval times, through the prevalence of a learned mode of regarding antiquity, when it came afresh into esteem through the reverence then felt for Abraham."

_H. Ewald, History of Israel, volume 1, page 284._

After the return of the Israelites from the Babylonian captivity—the returned exiles being mostly of the tribes of Judah and Benjamin—"the name of Judah took the predominant place in the national titles. As the primitive name of 'Hebrew' had given way to the historical name of Israel, so that of Israel now gave way to the name of 'Judæan' or 'Jew,' so full of praise and pride, of reproach and scorn. 'It was born,' as their later historian [Josephus] truly observes, 'on the day when they came out from Babylon.'"

_A. P. Stanley, Lectures on the History of the Jewish Church, volume 3, page 101._

JEWS: The early Hebrew history.