It is certain that the greater part of the Jesuits, those who in that society (as elsewhere) interfere with nothing, and who are much more numerous among them than is imagined, ought not, had it been possible, to have been punished for the faults of their superiors: thousands of these innocents were confounded unwillingly with a score of criminals: nay, further, these innocents were unhappily the only persons punished, and the only ones to be pitied; for the leaders had obtained, by their interest, pensions which they could enjoy at their ease, while the multitude sacrificed remained without bread as well as without support. All that could be alledged in favour of the general decree of expulsion pronounced against these fathers, was the famous passage of Tacitus, relative to that law of the Romans, which condemned to death all the slaves in a house for the crime of a single one: _habet aliquid ex iniquo omne magnum exemplum_; “every great example has somewhat unjust in it.” Thus, in the destruction of the Templars, a great number of innocents fell victims to the pride and insolent riches of their chiefs: and thus the disorders, of which the Templars were accused, were not the only cause of their destruction; their principal crime was that of having rendered themselves odious and formidable. Posterity will think the same of the judgement issued against the Jesuits, and of the exile to which they have been condemned: they will deem it perhaps severe, at least in appearance, but perhaps also will judge it indispensible: this time alone can decide. For the rest, independently of the natural compassion which the aged Jesuits, or those sick, and without resource, seemed to claim, and who after all are men, one would think a distinction might have been made, in the oath which was required, between the professed Jesuits and those who were not so, between those who had already renounced the institution and those who adhered to it still, without being absolutely tied to it. Allow the oath to have been required from the professed Jesuits, whom they wanted to get rid of, such a precaution might have been thought necessary: but was it necessary to require anything more of the Jesuits who were not professed, than a simple promise that they would not bind themselves to the institution, or any thing else of the ex-Jesuits, than a bare declaration that they had renounced it? The contrary conduct which was observed, might have preserved to the society subjects who were disposed to quit it, and who were deprived of every other resource: this rigour also might restore to the order, members which it had already lost.