, confessor to Lewis XIV. was born at Rouergue, in 1590. He became a Jesuit
, confessor to Lewis XIV. was born
at Rouergue, in 1590. He became a Jesuit in 1607, and
professed the fourth vow in 1624. He taught philosophy at
Toulouse six years, and divinity seven; and having discharged his duty in each of these capacities with great
applause, he was invited to Rome, to act as censor-general of the books published by the Jesuits, and theologist to
the general of the society. Upon his return to his own
province, he was appointed rector of the colleges of Montpellier and of Toulouse. He assisted as deputy of his
province at the eighth congregation-general of the Jesuits
held at Rome in 1645, where he distinguished himself in
such a manner, that father Vincent Caraffa, general of the
Jesuits, thought no person more fit to discharge the office
of assistant of France, which had been vacant for some
time. The ninth congregation gave him the same post,
under Francis Picolimini, general of the society, upon
whose death he was made provincial of the province of
France. Whilst he was engaged in this employment, he
was chosen confessor to the king 1654; and after having
discharged this office 16 years, he was obliged to solicit
his dismission; his great age having much impaired his
hearing. Father Sotueil, from whom these particulars are
taken, gives him the character of a person of great virtues,
perfect disinterestedness, modesty, and humility; exact in
practising the observances and discipline of his order; extremely cautious in using his interest for his own advantage, or that of his family; and of uncommon zeal for religion. “He was the hammer of heretics,” says he,
“and attacked particularly, with incredible zeal, the new
heresy of the Jansenists. He strenuously endeavoured to
get it condemned by the pope, and restrained by the authority of the king. Besides which, he confuted it with
such strength of argument, that his adversaries had nothing solid to reply to him.
” There are many (says Mr. Bayle) whom father Sotueil will never convince in this last
point; but he seems to agree with him in the character of
disinterestedness which he gives to Annat, who stirred so
little for the advancement of his family, that the king is
reported to have said, he knew not whether father Annat
had any relations.