The New Conspiracy Against the Jesuits Detected and Briefly Exposed
by Robert Charles Dallas · English · Gutenberg #33836 · 433,215 chars · public domain (US)
The Project Gutenberg eBook of The New Conspiracy Against the Jesuits Detected and Briefly Exposed
This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online
at www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States,
you will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.
Title: The New Conspiracy Against the Jesuits Detected and Briefly Exposed
Author: Robert Charles Dallas
Release date: October 3, 2010 [eBook #33836]
Language: English
Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/33836
Credits: Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE NEW CONSPIRACY AGAINST THE JESUITS DETECTED AND BRIEFLY EXPOSED ***
Produced by Jonathan Ingram, Keith Edkins and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net (This
file was produced from images generously made available
by The Internet Archive/American Libraries.)
Transcriber's note: A few typographical errors have been corrected: they
are listed at the end of the text.
French extracts are reproduced as printed, with hardly any accents.
* * * * *
THE
NEW CONSPIRACY
AGAINST THE JESUITS
DETECTED AND BRIEFLY EXPOSED;
WITH A
SHORT ACCOUNT OF THEIR INSTITUTE;
AND
OBSERVATIONS ON THE DANGER OF SYSTEMS OF
EDUCATION INDEPENDENT OF RELIGION.
* * * * *
BY R. C. DALLAS, ESQ.
* * * * *
Omnes qui se Societati addixerunt, in virtutum solidarum ac
perfectarum, et spiritualium rerum studium incumbant.
INSTITUTUM SOC. JESU, ed. Pragae, 1757, vol. ii, p. 72.
The causes which occasioned the ruin of this mighty body, as well as
the circumstances and effects with which it has been attended in the
different countries of Europe, are objects extremely worthy of the
attention of every intelligent observer of human affairs.
ROBERTSON'S CHARLES V, vol. iii, p. 225.
* * * * *
LONDON:
PRINTED FOR JAMES RIDGWAY, PICCADILLY.
1815.
C. WOOD, Printer,
Poppin's Court, Fleet Street.
* * * * *
{v}
TO
THE RIGHT HONOURABLE
GEORGE CANNING, M. P.
HIS MAJESTY'S AMBASSADOR EXTRAORDINARY TO
THE COURT OF PORTUGAL, _&c._ _&c._
SIR;
Your absence from this country, and the observation of the historian, which
I have adopted as a motto, will plead my excuse for dedicating this volume
to you, without a previous intimation of my wish for that honour to my work
and to myself. "The causes {vi} of the ruin of the society of Jesuits, with
its circumstances and effects, are worthy of your attention." I have
bestowed a considerable degree of labour in making myself acquainted with
them, and, having been induced to throw the result of my inquiries into the
form of a book, I know not to whom I can better present it than to a man,
who, among the services which he has been active in rendering to his
country, in her legislation and letters, has been the liberal advocate of
the catholic body in general, and who, I am confident, will be pleased to
see any society, or any individual, rescued from opprobrium, which time and
colouring may have fixed on character. You are on the spot, Sir, where the
Jesuits were persecuted with the greatest virulence; a circumstance, to
{vii} my apprehension, not the most favourable to the investigation of
truth, as it may well be imagined, that the prejudices, which were raised
by the unprincipled and unrelenting minister of Joseph I, of Portugal, have
too strongly enveloped it to be easily removed: but there are minds gifted
with a discernment approaching to intuition, and, if any man can unweave
the web, which has been spun around this unfortunate society, to your
penetration may it be trusted. I have examined the subject with sincerity
and disinterestedness, and, from conviction, I feel such interest in the
establishment of the facts which I have stated, and the conclusions which I
have drawn, that I dare hope that what I here offer to your consideration
will one day be corroborated by testimony and {viii} talents, that shall
remove all the doubt which the feebleness of my pen may leave upon it.
I have the honour to be,
Sir,
Your most obedient and
humble Servant,
R. C. DALLAS.
_September 4, 1815._
* * * * *
{ix}
PREFACE.
Having formerly occupied my thoughts on the subject of promoting the
knowledge and practice of religion among the Negroes in the West Indies, I
was naturally led to inquire into the means, which had been successfully
adopted in the catholic islands. I traced them to the enthusiastic labours
of the clergy in general, particularly the Jesuits. The conduct of the
fathers of that society in South America, not only excited in me
admiration, but the highest esteem, veneration, and affection, for that
enlightened and persevering body in the Christian cause, who had spread
over the immense regions of that {x} continent more virtue and real
temporal happiness than were enjoyed by any other quarter of the globe, as
well as a well founded hope of eternal felicity, by the redemption of
mankind through Christ. This undeniable merit made such an impression on my
mind, that I never gave credit to the horrors, which have been attributed
to the society.
Among the objects of my attention, during a late residence in France, the
restoration of the order became an interesting one, affording me some
pleasing conversations, and inducing me to search into authorities
respecting the actions and character of men, whom I had learned to venerate
and to love, the result of which was a confirmation of my early
predilection. On my return from the continent a short time since, I met
with a pamphlet {xi} lately published, entitled "A Brief Account of the
Jesuits," the ostensible object of which is to render the order odious, but
the real one is seen to be an attempt to attach odium upon catholics in
general, in the present crisis of the catholic question. I learned, from a
literary friend, that this pamphlet had originally appeared as Letters in a
newspaper, and that they had been answered in the same way, but that the
answers had not been republished. These I obtained and perused. I received
much satisfaction from them, and thought them worthy of being preserved.
They did not, however, appear to me sufficiently full upon the subject, and
I therefore resolved to publish them in the form of a pamphlet, with a
preliminary statement. I consequently renewed my inquiries, and the more I
inquire the more am I satisfied, that my veneration for this body of
Christian instructors is not misplaced. {xii}
It is perfectly evident to me, that there was an unjust conspiracy, which
originated in France, to destroy the Jesuits; and that it terminated
successfully about the middle of the last century. It is not an easy task
to unfold to its full extent the injustice and various iniquities of it,
since even respectable historians have been led away by the imposing
appearance, which the then undetected and half-unconscious ingenious agents
of jacobinism had, by every expedient of invention, of colouring, and of
wit, given to the hue and cry raised by those bitter enemies of the order,
the university and parliaments of France, and by some ministers of other
governments, particularly by the marquis de Pombal, the minister of the
king of Portugal. It is not my intention to undertake so laborious a task,
but I trust, that the following exposition will unfold sufficient {xiii} of
the injustice, which has been so unfeelingly and indefatigably heaped upon
the Jesuits, to convince every unprejudiced man, that the suppression of
the order has been injurious to society, and that the revival of it, far
from being dangerous, must be beneficial. I am not afraid, that this
expression of my sentiment will draw upon me any suspicion of disaffection
to the state, or the established church; my sentiments are well known to my
friends, and have been more than once publicly professed. The benefit,
which I think will arise from the restoration of the society, will consist
more particularly in the active and zealous cultivation of Christian
virtues, and a spirit of LOYALTY among the catholics of all countries,
whether protestant or catholic; and, unless we mean to say, with some of
the furious reformers, that the religion of the catholics is to be {xiv}
extirpated altogether, it is absurd to say, that they shall not have their
best and most active instructors.
When this volume had nearly gone through the press, in the course of
reading I met with the following curious passage, extracted from a Letter
to a Noble Lord by a Country Gentleman, entitled "Considerations on the
Penal Laws," &c. published by the Dodsleys, of Pall-Mall, so long ago as
1764, about two years after the suppression of the Jesuits in France, and
eleven previous to their total suppression by Clement XIV; I insert it, as
I think it will not be unacceptable to the reader:--"The rising generation
are now forming their principles on the writings of Voltaire, Rousseau,
D'Argens, and the philosopher of Sans-Souci; to whom may be added a long
catalogue of authors of our own {xv} country. In FRANCE _grave magistrates
already celebrate and_ THE FIRST COURTS OF JUDICATURE echo with the praises
of _Julian and Diocletian_; calculations are made, and the period is
pretended to be fixed, when Christianity is to be no more. The powerful
weapon of ridicule is employed not against popery alone, but to render
contemptible the whole Jewish and Christian revelation." The _grave
magistrates_, and _first courts of judicature_, are no other than _the
French parliaments_, who, we are informed by a member of the lower house,
were "ever ready to support the national independence[1]:" we see by what
steps, and we have felt with what success.
In the following pages, I have shown, {xvi} that those _courts of
judicature_ (which, far from being the immediate organs of the monarchs of
France, as the same member asserts, were, for the greater part of the last
century, in constant opposition to them, and the organs of rebellion) had
conspired to effect the destruction of the Jesuits; and, I suspect, that
"the mass of information," which supplies the proofs of the nascent
revolutionary spirit, and which is to be met with in the histories of all
Europe, are documents resulting from the piques and resentments of Pombal
and other arbitrary ministers, who chose to take the consciences of their
princes under their own care. These documents, afforded indeed by a most
respected character, are nevertheless open to all the objections that arise
from the principles and history of the intrigues of the ordinances alluded
to. There is however some decency in recurring to {xvii} ordinances to
found charges upon; the enemies of the Jesuits were not always so nice, as
the following extract from one of their calumniators will show:--"When the
Jesuits revolutionized Portugal, in 1667, and placed on the throne the
infant don Pedro, sir Robert Southwell was there, as our ambassador from
Charles II. His very curious correspondence with the duke of Ormond and
lord Arlington is extant, and is a precious fragment of a great political
event. The silent intrigues of the Jesuits do not seem to have been known
to sir Robert; but, according to the _Recueil Chronologique_, published by
THE COURT OF PORTUGAL, it is evident they were the principal actors, who,
having overturned the monarchy, afterwards suppressed the democracy, and
then, substituting an apparent aristocracy, reigned for some time over
Portugal, concealed under that {xviii} cloak." This is a fine specimen of
the warfare carried on against the society. The ambassador's ignorance of
the intrigues of the Jesuits is not brought forward as a proof of their
innocence, but as a reason why we should believe Pombal. As to the
revolutionizing Portugal, and placing don Pedro on the throne, the
ambassador could have been no stranger to the real causes of don Pedro's
being proclaimed regent during the life of his brother Alonzo, from the
incapacity of the latter, and the intrigues, first of his mother, and
afterwards of his wife, the princess of Nemours.
I would here leave the reader, with this fact fresh on his mind, to enter
upon the book before him, but that I wish to detain him a moment longer to
request him to carry also along with him the asseveration {xix} of the
author, that he is entirely unconnected with the individuals of the body,
whose character it is the object of this volume to place in a just point of
view. Though familiar with accounts of the society, I am unacquainted with
a single individual of it. The interest I feel is that which has been
inspired by their virtues, and by the injustice and cruelty of their
enemies, which I have ascertained to my complete conviction.
* * * * *
{xxi}
CONTENTS.
PAGE
INTRODUCTION 1
CHAPTER I.
_Remarks on the Objects of the Author of
"A brief Account of the Jesuits," and
on his mode of conducting his Argument_ 5
CHAPTER II.
_Inquiry into the Character of the Authorities
against the Jesuits, and of
those in favour of them; with a notice
of some of the Crimes imputed to
them_ 23
CHAPTER III.
_Of the Order of the Jesuits, with the
prominent features of the Institute_ 173
{xxii}
CHAPTER IV.
_Character of Pombal. Summary Observations,
and a brief notice of the tendency
and danger of Education independent
of Religion_ 229
THE LETTERS OF CLERICUS 259
APPENDIX.
_The Bull of Clement XIII_ 335
_The Judgment of the Bishops of France
in favour of the Jesuits_ 346
* * * * *
ERRATUM, or Omission, Page 81.
At the end of Henry IV's speech, add a reference to Dupleix, the same
historian referred to in page 72. The speech is also to be found in the
Memoirs of the Minister Villeroi, the confidant of Henry IV, in the
Pleadings of Montholon, in the French Mercury of 1604, and in Matthieu,
Henry IV's historiographer, whom that prince himself furnished with memoirs
for his history. De Thou himself reports it, but in a mangled way, and
professedly as _an extract_, yet clearly enough to corroborate the
substance of it.
* * * * *
{1}
THE
NEW CONSPIRACY
AGAINST THE JESUITS,
_&c._ _&c._
INTRODUCTION.
If there were a question whether there should be a change in the religion
of the state, or whether the sceptre of Great Britain were better placed in
the hand of a protestant or a catholic prince, my voice, slender as it is,
should eagerly profess my attachment to the monarchy, and to the church of
England. But no such question exists, or is likely to exist, in the
contemplation of British subjects, of any persuasion or denomination
whatever. It is with this conviction {2} on my mind, that I have resolved
to publish the result of my inquiries respecting the Jesuits, and to show,
that they do not merit the virulent slanders with which they have been
attacked, or the treatment, horrid and inhuman, which they were made to
suffer. A violent pamphlet, entitled "A brief Account of the Jesuits,"
lately republished from a newspaper, shall serve to direct me over the mass
of abuse, which I purpose to clear away in such a manner as to enable the
reader to proceed, without prejudice, to the perusal of the following
Letters, to which partiality might otherwise be attributed. They are
replies to some of the charges of the writer of the pamphlet, and they also
appeared in a newspaper, with the signature of _Clericus_, the assailant
having assumed that of _Laicus_, which I mention, as it may be convenient
for me to use these names occasionally.
I purpose, 1st, to make some remarks on the objects of the author of the
pamphlet, in his attack upon the Jesuits, and on his mode {3} of conducting
his argument: 2dly, to examine the character of the authorities against the
Jesuits, called by the writer historical evidences; and of those in favour
of them; and to notice some of the charges against the society: 3dly, to
give a brief account of the order, and of the fundamental character of it,
with the prominent features of the Institute of Loyola, contrasted with the
libellous _Monita Secreta_: and, 4thly, to conclude with observations
arising out of the preceding subjects, and on the necessity of making
religion the basis of education.
* * * * *
{5}
CHAPTER I.
_Remarks on the Objects of the Author of "A brief Account of the
Jesuits," and on his mode of conducting his Argument._
The professed objects of the author of a pamphlet, entitled "A brief
Account of the Jesuits," as stated in a preface, are "to examine the
propriety of extending papal patronage and protestant protection to the
Jesuits, and, as stated in page 2 of the pamphlet, to show, that _the
revival of the order_ is so pregnant with danger as to call for the
interference of parliament." The plan he pursues to effect these objects
is, to give a summary of the history of the order, to furnish some
_historical evidences_ in support of its correctness, and to argue from
these for the affirmative of his proposition. The plan is well enough laid;
but the author {6} has executed it in such a manner as to make it evident,
that he was not in search of truth, that he deceives himself if he thinks
he was, that he is only a violent and abusive disputant, that he is an
enemy to the catholics in general, and that, the question on their claims
being exhausted, he renovates the combat by attacking them through the
sides of the Jesuits. When an advocate handles a cause, which it is his
_duty_ to gain for his client, we know, that he brings forward every fact,
and urges every argument, that tends to support the positions on which his
cause hinges, sedulously masking every circumstance that contravenes his
statement, and avoiding every suggestion that weakens his reasoning upon
it. But the man, who is in pursuit of truth, of whatever nature it be,
looks at his object on all sides; he handles it, not to make of it what he
wishes, but to determine what it is; he analyses, he re-composes; he takes
the good and the bad as he finds them, and truth results from his
investigation. Let us see which of these two characters belongs to the
writer of the pamphlet. Every word of his {7} "Historical Summary" is
intended to place the Jesuits in an odious point of view; nor is a single
sentence admitted into it by which one could be led to imagine, that any
thing good had ever originated from them, or that they were not universally
demons in the shape of men. The writer goes in search of matter to compile
his Summary, and he finds an account of the Jesuits composed on the
authority of various publications, which have appeared at different times.
In a part of this narrative, he finds all that has been said to blacken the
order, and, also, a genuine passage of their history, which no man of any
feeling can read without enthusiastic admiration; now, would the writer,
who was in search of truth, have selected only that which was calculated to
produce condemnation, without giving his reader an opportunity of comparing
facts and drawing his own inferences? Yet this is really the case with this
enemy of the catholic cause, whose Summary is verbatim extracted from
Robertson's Charles V, as far as it answered the purpose of {8} his attack.
Who, after reading the part selected, would suspect, if he did not know it
before, that the following paragraph, from the same elegant pen, closed the
character of the Jesuits, and must have confounded the eye of their
assailant, since it failed to wring a tribute of praise from his
heart?--"But as I have pointed out the dangerous tendency of the
constitution and spirit of the order with the freedom becoming an
historian, the candour and impartiality _no less requisite in that
character_ call on me to add one observation: That no class of regular
clergy in the Romish church has been more eminent for decency, and even
purity of manners, than the major part of the order of Jesuits. The maxims
of an intriguing, ambitious, interested policy, _might_ influence those,
who governed the society, and might even corrupt the heart, and pervert the
conduct of _some individuals_, while the greater number, engaged in
literary pursuits, or employed in the functions of religion, was left to
the guidance of those common principles, which restrain men from {9} vice,
and excite them to what is becoming and laudable[2]."
{10}
The author, in a note, acknowledges, that his Summary does not _wholly_ lay
claim to {11} originality. It is, in fact, _all_ copied: why then did he
not cite his authority? and, when he was copying, why did he omit to copy
the passages that stared him in the face? Clearly from an attorney-like
motive, because it would have injured his cause, and would have
prepossessed his reader with an idea, that, whether the charges against
some of the rulers of the order were well-founded or not, the generality of
the Jesuits were estimable men, devoting themselves to the good of mankind,
and who had spread over the earth a very considerable share of human
happiness: clearly because he foresaw, that his reader would argue with
himself, that if, in despotic times, only a few busied themselves with
political affairs, while the body at large were good men, engaged in
zealously promoting the welfare, both temporal and eternal, of their
fellow-creatures, it would be unnatural to suppose, that, in the present
enlightened times, the many would become corrupt, or even the few engage
again in intrigues dangerous to society; and that he {12} would conclude,
that the labour of the author resolved itself into a new attempt against
tolerating the catholic religion; while in favour of toleration he would
find, in addition to the suggestions of his reason, his memory supplied
with innumerable, irrefragable arguments, which for years past have
resounded throughout the empire, in the houses of parliament as well as in
the remotest villages, enforced by princes of the realm with all the energy
of learning and of eloquence, as well as by individuals of every class of
men, in speeches, and in writings, in books, pamphlets, and the columns of
such newspapers as are open to liberal discussion[3].
{13}
The writer of the pamphlet, not satisfied with omitting whatever might tend
to defeat his object, industriously rakes out the most atrocious
imputations from the avowed enemies of the Jesuits, and classes their
authorities with genuine history, taking them for granted, never examining
the hands through which they passed, happy in having one and only one great
name on his side, that of the celebrated and very extraordinary genius,
Pascal. When the Provincial Letters were alluded to, as attacking a
supposed lax system of morals, did not truth require that they should be
stated to have been the satirical effusions of a writer, who had espoused
the cause of the Jansenists, the violent opposers of the Jesuits; and that
the ridicule which they contained had been declared by another great wit,
who was no enemy to ridicule, nor friend to religion (Voltaire), to be
completely misapplied. A lover of truth, when {14} balancing opinions as
proofs, would not have failed to quote from him the following passage: "It
is true, indeed, that the whole book (_the Provincial Letters_) was built
upon a false foundation; for the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and
Flemish Jesuits were _artfully_ ascribed _to the whole society_. Many
absurdities might likewise have been discovered among the Dominican and
Franciscan casuists, but this _would not have answered the purpose_, for
the whole raillery was to be levelled only at the Jesuits. These letters
were intended to prove, that the Jesuits had formed a design to corrupt
mankind; a design which no sect of society ever had, or can have."
With such enemies as the Jansenists, will it be thought extraordinary, that
a thousand fabrications of those days blackening the Jesuits may be
referred to? With such enemies as in later times appeared against them, in
the host of new philosophers and jacobins, is it wonderful that there
should be modern forgeries? {15} One such suffrage, as that which I have
quoted from Robertson, is of itself sufficient to outweigh folios of
charges originating in the jealous passions of a rival sect, in the
effusions of a mad mistaken philosophy, or in magisterial persecution,
which, to use the vigorous language of a living genius, in "the destruction
of the Jesuits, that memorable instance of puerile oppression, of jealousy,
ambition, injustice, and barbarity, for these all concurred in the act,
gave to public education a wound, which a whole century perhaps will not be
able to heal. It freed the phalanx of materialists from a body of
opponents, which still made them tremble. It remotely encouraged the
formation of sanguinary clubs, by causing the withdrawing of all religious
and prudent congregations, in which the savage populace of the Faubourg St.
Antoine were tamed by the disciples of an Ignatius and a Xavier. Such men
as Poree and La Rue, Vaniere and Jouvenci, in the academic chairs;
Bourdaloue, Cheminais, Neuville, L'Enfant, in the pulpit; {16} Segaud,
Duplessis, and Beauregard[4], in the processions of the cross, in the
public streets and ways, were, perhaps, alike necessary to secure
tranquillity in this world and happiness in the next[5]."
In assisting my memory, I have been led to compare the writer's extracts
from Robertson with the pages of the historian himself, and I have found
him, not only occasionally disfiguring the style on points of little
moment, by turning the words, but giving to the author's words a sense
which they were not intended to bear, by means of Italic types and
additions. For instance: the historian says, "As it was the professed
intention of the order of Jesuits to labour with {17} unwearied zeal in
promoting the salvation of men, this engaged them, of course, in many
active functions." On reading Robertson's work, would any one imagine, that
the author meant to insinuate, that the intention was insincere, and a mere
cloak to political vices? Is it not clear from all he writes, as well as
from this passage taken singly, that he gave the Jesuits credit for their
sincerity in devoting themselves to the salvation of men? Yet has the
writer of the pamphlet, by causing the word _professed_ to be printed in
Italics, called upon his reader to take his sense of Robertson's words, and
to believe, that the word _professed_ implies deceit, instead of the _open_
and _declared_ intention of the Jesuits. Not content with this low
falsifying of Robertson's ideas by Italic implication, he practises the
same trick by an Italic addition of some lines of his own to the text of
the historian, as follows: "_their great and leading maxim having uniformly
been, to do evil that good might come_." Can any thing be more
reprehensible? {18}
I will adduce one instance more of the disingenuousness of this writer.
Speaking, _exclusively_, of the Jesuits, he charges _them_ with "rendering
Christianity utterly odious in the vast empire of Japan[6]," and with
"enormities in China Proper." To have implicated other priests would not,
as Voltaire observed, answer the purpose: the Jesuits, as before, must be
isolated to be recrushed. Now, in this, as in the other accusations, we
shall find the anti-catholic writers including other orders. Let us see
what one of these writers says upon this occasion: after speaking of the
pride, avarice, and folly of the clergy, he tells us of an {19} execution
of twenty-six persons, "in the number whereof were _two foreign Jesuits_,
and several other fathers of the _Franciscan_ order." And a little after,
the same writer says, "some _Franciscan_ friars were guilty at this time of
a most imprudent step: they, during the whole of their abode in the
country, preached openly in the streets of Macao, where they resided; and
of their own accord built a church, contrary to the imperial commands, and
contrary to the advice and earnest solicitations _of the Jesuits_[7]." The
authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica will not be objected to by the
enemies of the catholics; nor, I presume, will that of Montesquieu, who
gives a very different reason for the Christian religion being so odious in
Japan: "We have already," says he, "mentioned the perverse temper of the
people of Japan. The magistrates considered the firmness which Christianity
inspires, when they attempted to make the people renounce their faith, as
in {20} itself most dangerous: they fancied that it increased their
obstinacy. The law of Japan punishes severely the least disobedience. They
ordered them to renounce the Christian religion: they did not renounce it;
this was disobedience: they punished this crime; and the continuance in
disobedience seemed to deserve another punishment[8]." As to the enormities
in China, we shall find, upon inquiry, that the Jesuits were not more
responsible for those. The following is an extract from a geographical
account of China: "P. Michael Rogu, a Neapolitan Jesuit, first opened the
mission in China, and led the way in which those of his order that followed
him have acquired so much reputation. He was succeeded by P. Ricci, of the
same society, who continued the work with such success, that he is
considered by the Jesuits as the principal founder of this mission. He was
a man of very extraordinary talents. He had the art of rendering himself
agreeable {21} to every body, and by that means acquired the public esteem.
He had many followers. At length, in 1630, the Dominicans and Franciscans
took the field, though but as gleaners of the harvest after the Jesuits;
and now it was that contentions broke out." This is not the place to enter
particularly into the charges brought against the order; all I here mean to
show is, with what want of candour the Jesuits are reviled; and I think,
after what has been stated, it cannot be doubted, that the chief object of
the writer of the pamphlet is to excite a ferment against the catholic
claims, nor that his mode of conducting his proposed inquiry is that of a
violent partizan, and not that of a genuine philosopher in search of truth.
Indeed, he almost assures us of it himself at the conclusion of his
preface, where he says: "It may, perhaps, appear from the _inquiry_ (_that
is, the attack_), that the crimes of the order are fundamental, and not
accidental." In omitting, therefore, to cite documents, which show that
they are not fundamental, does he not admit, {22} does he not plainly say,
_I have a point to gain, in which candour has no part; and_, quocumque
modo, _it must be gained_? Such is the case, and I must allow him great
perseverance in collecting titles of volumes long since forgotten; but to
the lovers of truth, to the nation at large, and to the parliament in
particular, or at least as far as my unpractised voice can be heard, I
exclaim, _hunc cavete_, et similes ei.
* * * * *
{23}
CHAPTER II.
_Inquiry into the Character of the Authorities against the Jesuits, and
of those in favour of them; with a notice of some of the Crimes imputed
to them._
Having seen how little credit is due to the spirit of the pamphlet before
us, let us inquire what credit is due to the authorities produced against
the Jesuits, and take a view of those in favour of them; and afterwards
briefly notice some of the crimes imputed to them.
In stating the results of my inquiry respecting the authorities, it may
save some trouble to begin with those on which Robertson founded his
account of the order. I am persuaded that, had he written at the present
era, his {24} authorities would have been sought in very different sources,
and his whole account of the order of Jesus would have been very different
to what it is. Far from impeaching that elegant writer with wilful
misrepresentations, or want of caution in selecting those authorities, I
readily give him credit for seeking the best he could obtain when he wrote;
and the more, from his taking some pains, in a note[9], to inform his
readers, that he believes his two principal authorities, Monclar and
Chalotais, to be respectable magistrates and elegant writers. But I
maintain, that, if he had seen them in the point of view in which they have
since appeared, as leaders on of the jacobinical philosophy, and of the
French revolution, it is not likely that he would have honoured their
fabrications with the weight of historical testimony: that their _Comptes
Rendus_ were fabrications we shall presently see. Let us first view the
list; _viz._ Monclar, Chalotais, D'Alembert, Histoire des Jesuites, the
French Encyclopedie, Charlevoix, Juan, and {25} Ulloa. As the three last
names are authorities in favour of the Jesuits, I shall not notice them at
present. D'Alembert and the Encyclopedie may go together, for he and
Diderot, who wrote the article _Jesuite_ in that work, were the chief
directors of it. To men, who have recovered from the stun of jacobinism, it
is hardly necessary to say, that the destruction of the Jesuits was of the
first importance to the success of D'Alembert and Diderot's philosophical
reform of human nature. The article written by the latter was completely
refuted by a French Jesuit named Courtois, but only the writers against the
order were read or cited. When the Jesuits first appeared in France, the
parliament hated them as friends of the pope; the university as rival
teachers. These two bodies combined to exterminate them. The university was
perpetually bringing actions against them before the parliaments, but they
found protection from the throne and the ministry. The university was
exasperated at the desertion of their scholars, who flocked to the Jesuit
schools, and at {26} the loss of their emoluments called _landi_, paid by
students to the professors: the Jesuits taught gratuitously, and the high
reputation of the celebrated Maldonado enraged the doctors beyond measure.
The parliaments and the doctors were the chief fomenters of the league; and
they were seconded by all the religious orders, the Jesuits excepted. The
parliament, headed by Harlay, made flaming harangues and arrets: the
doctors of the university and friars exhibited fanatical processions and
sermons; they pronounced Henry III and Henry IV excommunicated tyrants;
they canonized Jacques Clement; they rewarded his mother and family; they
openly preached regicide. Their rage equalled that of the modern jacobins.
They all, of course, detested the Jesuits, who, we may believe, were also
obnoxious to the Hugonot party. When the league was expiring, by the
conversion of Henry IV, the parliaments and university, constrained to
abjure it, were nevertheless determined upon effecting the banishment of
the Jesuits before {27} the king could enter on his government. The doctors
renewed their suits, and employed as advocates Arnaud, Pasquier, and Dolle,
who went into the courts with certainty of success. Completely successful
they would have been, but for the wisdom of the minister, the duke de
Sully, who, though a leader of the Hugonots, and consequently not biassed
in favour of the Jesuits, indeed evidently their enemy, was too nobly
minded to give an advantage to their assailants, which his master would not
have done. He stopped the proceedings, by interposing the authority of the
absent king, "which," said he, "is not to be compromised _pour une pique de
pretres et de theologiens_[10]." The prosecutors and the judges,
disconcerted for the time, resolved to lose no opportunity to effect their
object, and they soon found one in the crime of Chatel, in which they
triumphed without a shadow of proof. Not a Jesuit was ever proved to have
entered into the league: no writer accuses them of it, the advocates {28}
just mentioned excepted; and their invectives, amassed in _Les Extraits des
Assertions_, are the sole foundation of all that is said by Monclar,
Chalotais, and the other authors of the _Comptes Rendus_.
It was necessary to enter into this detail to enable the reader to trace
the foul sources of the chief authorities on which Robertson relied: but
what shall we think of them, in spite of that historian's compliment to the
elegance of their pens, when we hear, that these _procureurs_ were but the
_nominal_ authors of their respective _Comptes Rendus_, the mean
instruments of the ingenious atheists, who were preparing France for the
age of reason, the liberty of jacobinism, and the murders of philosophy?
That presented by Chalotais was written by D'Alembert himself; that of
Riquet, procureur general of the parliament of Thoulouse, was composed by
Comtezat, a notoriously debauched priest; that of Monclar, of Aix, was sent
to him from Paris, with a promise of being the next chancellor of France,
if he would adopt it, and {29} engage his parliament in the cause. The
venerable president of that parliament, D'Eguilles, refusing to concur in
the measure, was, through his means, banished, and his adherents with him,
by a _lettre de cachet_. Monclar died repentant, and retracted all that he
had said in presence of the bishop of Apt, who made a minute of the fact.
As for Chalotais; would the historian have cited him had he seen the
following character of that lawyer, drawn by a pen not inferior to his own,
distinguished by various works of genius, and which was employed on one of
the most interesting portions of English history, when his sovereign,
having occasion for his talents in a trying crisis of his affairs, called
him to his councils?[11] "The procureur general of Bretagne, La Chalotais,
eager to possess popularity, in order that he might arrive at power, {30}
enthusiastic in his friendships, violent in his hatred, both of which were
to him concerns of interest rather than of sentiment; blending with these
private principles the formidable powers of his public ministry, being the
oracle of a parliament, which, consisting of the first nobility of the
country, always acted in concert with, and never in opposition to the
States; this man had it in his power to arm his ambition or his vengeance
with the sword of justice; he could give a legal sanction to tumult, and
make trifles appear of serious importance; he could convert the most vapid
declamation into the gravest denunciation, and, in a word, could assist the
party, that he chose to espouse, with the whole artillery of _decrees_ and
_arrets_, which may be regarded as the _ultima ratio_ of the parliament, on
the same principle, that cannon are the _ultima ratio_ of kings. The
instant that such a man took part in the dispute, it might well be
expected, that the whole province would be immediately thrown into
universal confusion. In the year 1764, the duke D'Aiguillon, {31}
commandant of Bretagne, a peer of France, grand nephew of cardinal
Richelieu, nephew of the then minister, lastly a friend of the Jesuits, and
in great favour with the dauphin, was denounced in the parliament of
Bretagne, by the procureur general on his arrival in Paris. This man, who
was the violent enemy of that society, was also the devoted agent of the
king's mistress, and of the prime minister, who were leagued together to
bring about the destruction of the Order."
So much for the reliance to be placed on La Chalotais. There remains
another authority of Robertson's to be noticed, _viz._ "The History of the
Jesuits." He does not mention the name of the author of it, but no doubt it
was Coudrette's, as he would otherwise have felt it incumbent upon him to
make some distinction. This man was a decided partizan of the French
parliaments, and well known to be an inveterate enemy of the Jesuits. As
his character is well drawn in the following {32} Letters[12], I shall say
nothing more of him here, than that his work evidently appears unworthy of
being referred to as an authority.
From what has been already said, and from the neglect shown by Robertson to
the multitude of other writers adopted as authorities in the pamphlet
before me, it is but too evident that there long existed a conspiracy
against a society, whose principles and energy awed infidelity and
rebellion, and whose superior talents excited jealousy and hatred. Let us,
however, see what kind of men they are to whom the new accuser of the
society refers us for proofs of their being such demons as he has
represented them. We will afterwards take a view of those, who think and
write differently, and we shall be able to determine on which side
authority lies.
I will not pretend to go numerically through the catalogue presented in the
pamphlet. {33} Publications infinitely multiplied deluged Europe for the
purpose of overwhelming the Jesuits; an infinity of references, therefore,
if not of authorities, remains at the service of their enemies, and it
would be useless and tiresome, if not impossible, to wade through them. I
shall principally notice those on which the conspirator before me places
his bitterest reliance, such as are most inveterate, most profuse and
blackening in their accusations; touching slightly, however, or not at all,
on those sufficiently refuted in the succeeding Letters. To refute all that
was printed against the devoted society of Jesus would require a complete
history of the destruction of the Order[13], but within the limits of this
brief exposition it is not possible to go very deep into the scrutiny of
the malice, and of the means resorted to for the purpose of effecting it.
To remove some of the thick, poisonous weeds, which mantle the surface of
the subject, so as to show the body clear {34} beneath, is the extent of my
present undertaking; and, if I appear concise, one consideration is in my
favour, namely, that imputations advanced by a thousand different writers
are not _multiplied_ but _repeated_, and that reverberations of falsehood
are still falsehood. We have already seen, that even the powers and
ingenuousness of a Robertson have been unable to extract from them the
voice of truth.
France has produced the greatest number of writers against the society. The
speeches and publications of those in the times of the league, as I have
said, furnished the original matter to the authors of the _Comptes Rendus_;
the theme of regicide, the tales of the Jesuits Varade, Gueret, Guignard,
the whole guilt of the league, &c., to which more recent matter,
particularly lax doctrines of morality, has been added. This is all
collected in the _Extraits des Assertions_, a work evidently replete with
studied fabrications, as is shown by Beaumont, archbishop of Paris,
Montesquiou, bishop of Sarlat, and in the {35} _Re__ponse aux Assertions_.
I believe, that this _Reponse_ and the _Apologie de l'Institut_ are the
only works written in defence of the society, which the Jesuits publicly
avowed. These are unanswerable, and should be referred to by historians.
The characters of Prynne and De Thou are drawn in the following
Letters[14]. De Thou was a parliamentarian. Of Prynne I shall farther
observe, that, besides his notoriety as a factious agent, lord Clarendon
informs us, that he had been looked upon as a man of reproachful character
previous to the infamous severities of the star chamber, which was the
means of his obtaining consideration, for those of his profession, and
others, thought, that persons, in his situation of life, should not be
treated so ignominiously[15]. His character may be viewed in Hume's
History[16]; and here let me observe, that {36} it was not only the
catholics he attacked, but the manners of the times and the church; for
which he was punished. Prynne was a thorough-paced puritan: through him and
others of the same stamp the existing house of commons were glad to debase
the government, and they absolutely reversed the sentence, which had been
passed on him and other libellers. "The more ignoble these men were," says
Hume, "the more sensible was the insult upon royal authority[17]." What
writer, valuing his own respectability, would cite such a creature as this?
One of a sect, who, the writer of the pamphlet himself tells us, were
united with the Jesuits, to whom their pulpits were open, for the purpose
of overawing the parliament, and compelling it to destroy the king. This
too is cited from Prynne, to whom he refers for _much valuable evidence_.
The pamphlet says, "see Rapin." The name has something less barbarous in
the sound than {37} most of the others cited by the writer. Let us see
Rapin. We find, in the pages of this historian, the names of Jesuit and
catholic indiscriminately used, as accused of plots, suffering the rack,
and confuting the accusations brought against them by the most persuasive
simplicity of their protestations of innocence, and the intrepidity of
their deaths. The pretended plots, in the days of Elizabeth and of the
Stuarts, cited by a writer in 1815, against the toleration of the
catholics[18]! Well, but see the _state trials,_ the _actio in proditores_,
drawn up by our own judges, &c.[19] "Nothing," says {38} Hume, "can be a
stronger proof of the fury of the times, than that lord Russel,
notwithstanding {39} the virtue and humanity of his character, seconded the
house of commons in the barbarous scruple of the sheriffs" on the power of
the king to remit the hanging and quartering of {40} lord Stafford, that
innocent victim to his pure attachment to God. Afterwards, when lord Russel
was himself condemned, the king, in remitting the same part of the sentence
for treason, said, "he shall find, that I am possessed of that prerogative,
which, in the case of lord Stafford, he thought proper to deny me."
I cannot here refrain from contrasting the intelligence, the spirit, and
the wisdom of that great and distinguished statesman, Charles James Fox,
with the tame and adoptive, though virulent, disposition of a writer, who,
in another part of his pamphlet, has dared to warn every man from speaking
in favour of the catholic priests of Ireland, lest he should be provoked to
overwhelm the whole body with damning proofs--proofs charitably kept _in
petto_, by this insinuator of more than he chooses to say. Speaking of one
of the imaginary popish plots, Mr. Fox expresses himself thus: "Wherefore,
if this question were to be decided upon the ground of authority, the
reality of the plot {41} would be admitted; but there are cases, where
reason speaks so plainly, as to make all argument drawn from authority of
no avail, and this is surely one of them." And, a few pages after, we have
the following striking passage: "Even after the dissolution of his last
parliament, when he had so far subdued his enemies as to be no longer under
any apprehensions from them, the king did not think it worth while to save
the life of Plunket, the popish archbishop of Armagh, of whose innocence no
doubt could be entertained. But this is not to be wondered at, since, in
all transactions relative to the popish plot, minds, of a very different
cast from Charles's, became, as by some fatality, divested of all their
wonted sentiments of justice and humanity. Who can read, without horror,
the account of that savage murmur of applause, which broke out upon one of
the villains at the bar swearing positively to Stafford's having proposed
the murder of the king? And how is this horror deepened when we reflect,
that in that odious cry were, probably, {42} mingled the voices of men to
whose memory every lover of the English constitution is bound to pay the
tribute of gratitude and respect! Even after condemnation, lord Russel
himself, whose character is wholly (this instance excepted) free from the
stain of rancour or cruelty, stickled for the severer mode of executing the
sentence, in a manner which his fear for the king's establishing a
precedent of pardoning in cases of impeachment (for this, no doubt, was his
motive) cannot satisfactorily excuse[20]." Now what does the writer of the
pamphlet before me say? "It is fashionable, with many reasoners, to treat
all history as a fable, and to set up for themselves in matters of policy,
in defiance of the testimony of antiquity. These persons would assign the
same office to the records of past ages, as they would to the _stern
lights_ of a vessel, which serve only to throw a light over the path which
has been passed, and not over that which lies before us. I trust, however,
that there are yet many among us who {43} have not been so taught." It is,
indeed, but too fashionable to put up fantastic reasoning against
authority, and particularly against sacred authority; but reason, which
knows to distinguish the nature of authority; reason, which is bold in the
affairs of men, and humble in its permitted intercourse with God; reason,
as Fox and Hume, and all historians worthy the title, convince us, steps
not out of its province when it interposes to rectify misleading records or
historical assertions; and in no case is it more eminently required than in
the history of the order of Jesus, which passion, interest, and ability
have united to disfigure. What is meant by the allusion to _stern lights_ I
am at a loss to conjecture. I am not much disposed, in a work of this kind,
to go into verbal or rhetorical criticism; but when a man writes with such
pompous and despotic decision as this author does, one has a right to
expect of him, when he amuses himself with figurative language, a clear
notion of what he aims at. When, therefore, he insinuates that such
reasoners as Hume {44} and Fox are reprehensible for serving records of
past ages like _stern lights_ of a vessel, instead of like modern moons to
carriages (for moons evidently ran in the writer's head), we are puzzled
between what he says and what he means. From his own words we are bound to
take it for granted that he means to condemn reasoning, and to approve of a
pertinacious adherence to records, however inconsistent and contradictory;
whereas, by his intended simile, he blames the reasoners for making use of
records; for, if stern lights must serve as a simile, records are certainly
more analogous to them than to carriage moons, which are concurrent aids,
that show the driver nothing but the way before him, and are not of the
least use to those travellers who are coming after on the same road; stern
lights, on the contrary, are intimations at sea, from those who go before
to those who follow, of the track to be pursued. The truth, I believe, is,
that the author does not know the use of stern lights, and imagines that
mariners illuminate aft to amuse fishes in {45} the wakes of their ships.
Records, no doubt, are moral, as ship lanthorns are physical lights to
guide; but treachery or ignorance, in either, may mislead, in which case
the seaman will consult his compass and the inquirer his reason[21].
{46}
But to return from this digression to Rapin. We learn from him, that
Elizabeth herself, {47} whom no one will charge with over-tenderness,
reprobated the cruelties practised upon the catholics. "Meanwhile," says
he, "the queen sent for the judges of the realm, and sharply reproved them
for having been too severe in the _tortures_ they had made these men
suffer[22]." We have only to reflect on this passage of {48} Rapin, to
appreciate the evidence furnished by the state trials of those days, the
_actio in proditores_, and the reporters of "Criminels de Lege Majeste," so
often cited by the enemies of the Jesuits. It was not only in catholic
countries, we see, that the rack and other modes of torture were made the
tests of truth; but they have been so long abhorred by Englishmen, that I
fondly believed that there was not one among us who would allow himself to
cite the efficacy of them as a proof in any argument. Their _inefficacy_,
indeed, may justly be cited in testimony; for what they extort is in all
probability false, what they fail to extort is in all probability true. If
this reasoning be sound, how many blameless, how many virtuous men has the
hand of party in this country consigned to cruel deaths[23]! In addition to
what Rapin {49} states of Elizabeth, it is not irrelevant to add here what
Camden reports of her on the same subject: he tells us expressly, that she
thought most of the priests were innocent, or, which is the same thing,
that she did not believe them guilty. His words are, _Plerosque tamen ex
misellis his sacerdotibus exitii in patriam conflandi conscios fuisse non
credidit_[24].
Of the fairness of their trials in still later times, those of Charles II,
we have specimens in Hume's History. Why was not Hume quoted by the writer
of the pamphlet? We find more of Jesuits in his pages than in Rapin's, and
something against them too; but Hume, like Robertson, was guided by
principle {50} on this subject; that is, he stated the character of the
order from the pictures which he had received of it; but, at the same time,
he exposed the injustice of the trials in which the Jesuits were involved,
and the invalidity of the evidence produced against them. The whole of his
sixty-seventh chapter is, in fact, however unintended, a memorial in favour
of the Jesuits, and a philippic on their enemies. As these pages may fall
into the hands of some persons who may not have the opportunity or the
leisure to read this portion of his history, I shall make the following
extract, as a testimony of the horrid injustice practised in former times;
and I am very much mistaken if any man of feeling and sound intellect will
read it without indignation against the Oateses and Bedloes of the present
day.--"But even during the recess of parliament there was no interruption
to the prosecution of the catholics accused: the king found himself obliged
to give way to this popular fury. Whitebread, provincial of the Jesuits,
Fenwic, {51} Gavan, Turner, and Harcourt, all of them of the same order,
were first brought to their trial. Besides Oates and Bedloe, Dugdale, a new
witness, appeared against the prisoners. This man had been steward to lord
Aston, and, though poor, possessed a character somewhat more reputable than
the other two; but his account of the intended massacres and assassinations
was equally monstrous and incredible. He even asserted, that two hundred
thousand papists in England were ready to take up arms. The prisoners
proved, by sixteen witnesses from St. Omers, students, and most of them
young men of family, that Oates was in that seminary at the time when he
swore that he was in London: but, as they were catholics, and disciples of
the Jesuits, their testimony, both with the judges and jury, was totally
disregarded. Even the reception, which they met with in court, was full of
outrage and mockery. One of them saying, that Oates always continued at St.
Omers, if he could believe his senses; 'you {52} papists,' said the chief
justice, 'are taught not to believe your senses.' It must be confessed,
that Oates, in opposition to the students of St. Omers, found means to
bring evidence of his having been at that time in London: but this
evidence, though it had, at that time, the appearance of some solidity, was
afterwards discovered, when Oates himself was tried for perjury, to be
altogether deceitful. In order farther to discredit that witness, the
Jesuits proved, by undoubted testimony, that he had perjured himself in
father Ireland's trial, whom they showed to have been in Staffordshire at
the very time when Oates swore that he was committing treason in London.
But all these pleas availed them nothing against the general prejudices.
They received sentence of death; and were executed, persisting to their
last breath, in the most solemn, earnest, and deliberate, though
disregarded, protestations of their innocence[25]."
{53}
I must not forget, that I am still producing the authorities quoted against
the Jesuits. Having been led by these into adducing the favourable
testimony of Hume, I mean not to dissemble his objections to the order:
these are, their _zeal for proselytism_, and _their cultivation of learning
for the nourishment of superstition_. The zeal for proselytism, in itself,
can be no crime; and, if unconnected with the treasons, persecutions, and
vices, so abundantly charged upon the catholics, it is a natural sentiment
of the mind. It is indeed that propensity, which, so violently condemned in
catholics, has been the chief propagator of every sect since the
reformation to the present moment, and not without symptoms of rebellion,
and even of king-killing. Some instances, to show this, will not be
uninteresting here. The heads of the reformers, in Scotland, as we are
informed by Hume, being _desirous_ to _propagate_ their principles, entered
privately into a bond, or association, and called themselves the
_congregation of_ {54} _the Lord_, in contradistinction to the established
church, which they denominated the congregation of Satan. The tenour of the
bond was as follows:--"We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the
antichrist of our time, does cruelly rage, seeking to overthrow and to
destroy the gospel of Christ and his congregation, ought, according to our
bounden duty, to strive, in our master's cause, even unto the death, being
certain of the victory in him. We do therefore promise, before the majesty
of God and his congregation, that we, by his grace, shall, with all
diligence, continually apply our whole power, substance, and our very
lives, to maintain, set forward, and establish, the most blessed word of
God and his congregation; and shall labour, by all possible means, to have
faithful ministers, truly and purely to minister Christ's gospel and
sacraments to the people: we shall maintain them, nourish them, and defend
them, the whole congregation of Christ, and every member thereof, by our
whole power, and at the hazard of our {55} lives, against Satan, and all
wicked power, who may intend tyranny and trouble against the said
congregation: unto which holy word and congregation we do join ourselves;
and we forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the
superstitions, abomination, and idolatry thereof; and moreover shall
declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this faithful promise
before God, testified to this congregation by our subscriptions.--At
Edinburgh, the third of December, 1557."--Hume adds; "Had the subscribers
of this zealous league been content only to demand a toleration of the new
opinions, however incompatible their pretensions might have been with the
policy of the church of Rome, they would have had the praise of opposing
tyrannical laws enacted to support an establishment prejudicial to civil
society: but, it is plain, that they carried their views much farther; and
their practice immediately discovered the spirit by which they were
actuated. Supported by the authority, {56} which they thought belonged to
them as the congregation of the Lord, they ordained, that prayers in the
vulgar tongue should be used in all the parish churches of the kingdom;
and, that preaching and the interpretation of the scriptures should be
practised in private houses, till God should move the prince to grant
public preaching by faithful and true ministers. Such bonds of association
are always the forerunners of rebellion; and this violent invasion of the
established religion was the actual commencement of it[26]."
Whatever the catholic zeal may have produced, nothing can exceed the
insolence and seditious spirit of the reformers. Knox's usual appellation
of the queen of Scotland, the unfortunate Mary, was _Jezebel_. "The
political principles of that man, which he communicated {57} to his
brethren, were as full of sedition as his theological were of rage and
bigotry[27]." Was there no treason, was there no regicide doctrine in the
following brutal speech, which he addressed to her? "Samuel feared not to
slay Agag, the fat and delicate king of Amalek, whom king Saul had saved:
neither spared Elias Jezebel's false prophets, and Baal's priests. Phineas
was no magistrate, yet feared he not to strike Cozbi and Zimri. And so,
madam, your grace may see, that others than chief magistrates may lawfully
inflict punishment on such crimes as are condemned by the law of God[27]."
Is it not the zeal for proselytism, that daily thins the established church
of England, and increases the congregations of the innumerable
denominations of sectaries, which are tolerated in this country, and of
which each, if it could, would make its own universal? Even in private and
temperate characters, a conformity of {58} soul is one of the bases of
friendship. The desire of impressing our sentiments and opinions upon the
minds of those we love is the source of intercourse; we should be dumb
without it. It is not wonderful, that this spring of the social system
should extend to the principles of religion; and to say, that a Christian
is zealous to make a Pagan a Christian is to bestow the highest praise upon
him. If the reformed missionaries deserve this praise, it cannot be refused
to the Jesuits. Nothing, in fact, can be more laudable than such a zeal,
and all that can be objected to it is foreign to its real nature. The
treasons and crimes, which have been imputed to the Jesuits, Hume himself
has shown were falsely charged to them. Vice is not inherent in any
profession of faith; it is inherent in the corrupted nature of man. Compare
a Knox with a Bordaloue, a Prynne with a Beauregard or a Bossuet, and we
shall be blind if we do not perceive the difference between the zeal which
actuates the Christian, and that which leads to treason and to crime. {59}
Hume's other objection to the Jesuits was, "their cultivation of learning
for the nourishment of superstition." Now we very well know how far his
idea of superstition extended, and that it did not fall short of the whole
system of revealed religion. It is not necessary to dwell long upon this
objection. The superstition which is injurious to mankind, must be the
offspring of ignorance; and, no one denies, that ignorance and superstition
were very prevalent in the dark ages of the world, and even long after the
revival of letters; no one denies, that weak and illiterate minds, of
whatever persuasion, are yet prone to it. What is meant by the superstition
_nourished by learning_ can only be the impression of mysteries, which the
understanding, however puzzled, finds sufficient grounds to entertain, and
on which to build hopes of an immaterial and immortal connexion with the
Supreme Being. This kind of superstition, or rather this religious
impression, has ever been cherished by the noblest minds, and forms a
prominent part of the character of learned {60} men of all persuasions.
Attached, myself, to the church of England, it is, nevertheless, clear to
me, that the Reformation has generated the most absurd superstitions; and I
cannot conceive that there is a man, of unbiassed mind and good sense, who
would not rather embrace all that has been retrenched from the catholic
creed, than adopt the spurious abominations and blasphemies which, every
where, under the screen of toleration, disgrace the world. But I am not
here entering into a defence of the Roman church, or into a derision of the
vagaries which have sprung from imaginary rationality, or misapplied
enthusiasm; my only purpose was to speak of Hume's authority; and I shall
quit the subject of superstition to turn to that of casuistry, to which he
also alludes.
And here it is that the deadliest blow is aimed against the Jesuits. If
their system of morality makes virtues of "prevarication, perjury, and
every crime, when it serves _ghostly_ purposes," the reproach is fatal. On
this head, the writer {61} of the pamphlet gives us a string of casuists,
to confound the order at once. Desirous either of clearing away or
substantiating this charge, and recollecting the remark of Voltaire, which
I have already cited, that "the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and
Flemish Jesuits were _artfully_ ascribed _to the whole society_," I
inquired more particularly into the character and objects of the casuists
of the order; and, the more I reflected, the more I was convinced of the
malignity of the adversaries of the society, on whom the charge might well
be turned, changing Hume's derisive epithet of _ghostly_ into two other
qualifying words, _viz._ _rebellious_ and _revolutionary_; for who will
deny that _prevarication_, _perjury_, and _every crime_, have been resorted
to, and justified for rebellious and revolutionary purposes?
In such a number of casuistical writers, it may be imagined, that some have
erred. The Jesuits never wished to defend them. It may be presumed, that
the number of errors was not great, {62} since their enemies found it
necessary to commit so many falsifications to make up the volume of
ASSERTIONS. In many instances, the author of that book attributes to the
casuist, opinions which he only cites to refute. In moral theology the
Jesuits had two rules, from which few of them ever deviated; one was, to
follow the opinions which were most _common_; the other, never to defend an
opinion when prohibited or condemned by the holy see. Some of their
casuists taught doctrines, which, in their time, were the most usual in
schools, but which were afterwards condemned or prohibited at Rome. Their
enemies imputed these doctrines to them as crimes. The Dominican and
Franciscan casuists might have been equally charged; but, as Voltaire
observed, it would not have _answered the purpose_.
The chief casuists, collected to _answer the purpose_ in the new conspiracy
against the Jesuits, are the following: Lamy, Moya, Bauny, Berruyer,
Casnedi, and Benzi. Since, next to the _Monita Secreta_, that infamous
forgery so {63} completely exposed in the subsequent Letters, the writer of
the pamphlet relies on the immoral doctrines to be found in the writings of
these priests, let us see on what foundation they stand. I shall first
observe, that the _Apology for the Casuists_, said to be published by the
Jesuits, so far from being avowed as a work of their own, was disavowed by
the superiors of the order, and condemned by the pope and many prelates. It
was written by Pere Pirot, who seemed, in a manner, determined to justify
Pascal's Satires, by defending certain opinions, in spite of their having
been condemned, as D'Avrigny informs us, in his _Memoires Chronologiques et
Dogmatiques pour servir a l'Histoire Ecclesiastique depuis 1600 jusqu'en
1716, &c._[28] The author laments the hard fate of religious societies, of
which he observes, _que toute faute personelle dans le jugement du public
devient une faute generale, et les enfans portent l'iniquite de leurs peres
jusqu'a la troisieme et la quatrieme generation_.
{64}
The _Course of Theology_, by LAMY, is classed with the _Apology_, as
justifying murder, &c. This author was a Neapolitan, whose name was AMICI,
and the work, from which the charge in question is extracted, consists of
nine volumes folio! The proposition attributed to him, to blacken him as a
Jesuit, was not his, nor ever adopted by him. It had been taught, long
before, by the celebrated casuist Navarre, and others totally unconnected
with the Jesuits. Amici mentions it, and alleges the reasons which had been
given in support of it, but adds, _nolumus a nobis (haec) ita sint dicta ut
communi sententiae adversentur, sed tantum disputandi gratia proposita_. The
proposition was omitted altogether in the second edition of his work, and,
being formally condemned by Alexander VII, in 1665, was never after
defended by any catholic divine.
MOYA seems to have been a very virtuous man, though, perhaps, rather
indiscreet in his zeal for the credit of his society. The facts are {65}
these: a book had been published by one Gregory Esclapey, reproaching the
Jesuits with teaching many erroneous doctrines. To this work Moya published
an answer, under the name of Guimenius, in which he professedly abstains
from all inquiry into the merits of the doctrines; but, being imputed to
the Jesuits by their adversary, he undertakes to show, that they were not
responsible for them, as they did not originate with them, having been
taught by the older divines, previous to the existence of the order. The
doctrines were condemned at Rome in 1666, and Moya, in the third edition of
his work, proves the justice of the condemnation, by entering into a
refutation of them.
BAUNY lived at the same time. He was the intimate friend and confidant of
the famous cardinal de la Rochefoucault, archbishop of Sens, and reformer
of the Benedictines. He was afterwards a zealous missionary in Bretagne,
under the bishop of St. Pol de Leon. He died of his missionary labours. If
he treated other {66} with lenity, it is certain he did not spare himself.
His "Somme des Peches" was written, as he informs us, by the positive order
of a bishop, probably the bishop of St. Pol, and it was published by order
of the bishop, unaccompanied by the sanction or approbation of any Jesuit;
nor was it used in their schools, consequently, its doctrines are nowise
attributable to the society. It contains several relaxed propositions,
deservedly censured by the French clergy in 1642.
BERRUYER is stated by the pamphlet-writer to have been convicted of
blasphemy, and condemned by Benedict XIII and Clement XIII. This is not
true; he never was convicted of blasphemy. He was not a casuist. His
"Histoire da Peuple de Dieu" was censured and condemned by Benedict XIV and
Clement XIII. He was a man of much erudition, and master of an agreeable
and graceful style, but fond of extraordinary opinions. The chief faults
imputed to him are, that he {67} disparages the simplicity and majesty of
the inspired books, by rhetorical tropes and figures, and modern
phraseology; and that he discourses on the humanity of the Redeemer in a
manner that seems to favour the ancient heresy of the Nestorians. The
French Jesuits disavowed the work, and submitted unanimously to the
condemnation of it. It is rather surprising, that this author should have
been cited among the casuists by the writer of the pamphlet, who, if he had
read the imputed blasphemy, would have found in it something of protestant
principles, pushed even beyond the reform adopted by our church, refusing
the Virgin Mary the title to her being mother of our Saviour in his divine
nature. But what does this signify? It is enough to have heard that the
book was condemned by a pope, no matter which; it could not have been
condemned without being blasphemous; and who could suspect, that a Jesuit
had any correspondent sentiment with protestants? {68}
CASNEDI was of a noble and ancient Milanese family; a man of great
learning, zeal, and piety. He maintained, that the moral merit or demerit
of an action depended upon the belief and intention of the agent. A very
simple and incontrovertible proposition; but, being expressed in ardent
terms, not unlike those used by the fanatical orators of the present day,
it makes a flaming show among the articles of impeachment now instituted
against the whole society of Jesus.
BENZI is represented in several French and Italian libels in the foul
colours copied by the writer of the pamphlet. He was a respectable and much
injured man. He was universally revered in Venice, where he was a
distinguished director and preacher. Far from teaching the horrors imputed
to him, he merely gave an opinion, in writing, on being consulted, whether
certain trespasses were to be considered as cases _reserved_ or _not
reserved_. It was merely a _questio juris_, a technical opinion, and not a
{69} decision on the subject matter. Malice and calumny did the rest.
This, I believe, is the _triumphant_ list of casuists drawn up, rank and
file, to confront and confound the whole society to which they are said to
have belonged. The philosopher Bayle tells us, that the writers in those
days "had only to publish boldly whatever they chose against the Jesuits,
they might be certain of convincing an infinite number of people. The
prejudice against them had become so general, that, let them bring forward
what proofs they might, it was not possible for them to undeceive the
world." And he adds; "But I cannot imagine how the rules of morality suffer
such an abuse of public prejudice[29]." Had he lived till now, he would
have seen, that there are heads of the nineteenth century which _can
imagine_ it very virtuous to excite, foment, and augment prejudice on the
same subject, in order {70} to gratify the vanity of writing, or the
unfounded spleen of a less relenting philosophy than his own.
The great sources of _such historical proofs_ as have been amassed by the
new conspiracy against the Jesuits being proved to be impure and unworthy
of credit, it becomes as unnecessary as it is disgusting to wade through
the mud and filth of the mass of obscure pamphlets referred to by the
writer of the pamphlet, such as "Prynne's hidden Works of Darkness," and
"Rome's Masterpiece," "Remarks of a Portugueze," "A true and certain
Relation of sundry Machinations and Plots of the Jesuits," "The Anatomy of
Popish Tyranny," "Recit des desseins les plus Secrets des Jesuites,"
"Jesuites Marchands," "Recueil des Proces contre les Jesuites," "Idee
generale des Vices," &c. &c. There is, however, one more of the catalogue,
which I will notice, to prove still farther the dishonesty of the means
taken by the new conspirators to blacken the Jesuits; it is {71} "Le Franc
Discours, or the Memorial presented to Henry IV against them." Did it not
become an inquirer into the truth of the accusations, to state the answer
of Henry IV to the accusers of the Jesuits? An answer which, in itself
alone, is enough to vindicate the society, and unveil the immense and
complicated engine so long since put in motion for its destruction; and so
irresistibly and successfully employed, in the course of time, by the
framers of it. Pius VII is not the first, who has recalled the Jesuits; the
great and good Henry IV recalled them, after they had been banished from
his kingdom by the machinations of their enemies. Then it was, that he was
memorialed; that remonstrance upon remonstrance was laid before him: but
Henry was not easily imposed upon by passionate asseverations, nor made the
dupe of envious persecutions. On the parliament delaying to give effect to
his edict for the re-establishment of the Jesuits, he informed them, that
he was determined to be obeyed; but he admitted a deputation of some of
their members, with {72} their first president, Harlay, at their head, who
went to the palace to state anew their remonstrances. Dupleix, a French
historian, says, that Harlay made a long harangue to the king, which "was
rather an invective, filled with all the abuse and outrage in the pleadings
of Pasquier and Arnaud; in the Catechism of Pasquier, and in the work
entitled _Franc Avis_, against the society, than the speech of a
statesman[30]." Henry's reply lies at this moment before me on the table,
and, I think, I should be wanting to the cause of truth and justice, if I
neglected to insert it here. It is rather long for a quotation, but it
cannot be tedious, and I am certain, that every unprejudiced reader will be
gratified with the perusal of it.
"It is very kind, it is very kind of you to be so careful of my person
and my kingdom. I know your meaning perfectly; but you do not know
mine. You have started difficulties, to {73} your thinking, very great
and considerable, and little know, that I have thought on and
considered them all these eight or nine years past; and that the best
resolutions for the time to come are taken from reflections on things
past, which I am acquainted with better than any person whatever. You
set up for mighty statesmen, and understand state affairs no more than
I do the drawing the report of a cause. As to the affair of Poissy[31]
things would have gone much better for the catholics, if all of you had
acted your part as well as a Jesuit or two, who, very luckily, happened
to be there. There clearly appeared, not the ambition, but the
abilities of the Jesuits; and I do not understand how you can make
those ambitious, who refuse dignities and prelacies, and make a vow to
God never to aspire to any preferment; and, who seek nothing in this
world besides serving all that are willing to employ them, without any
{74} view of interest or recompence. If the name of Jesuit displease
you, why not find fault with those, who stile themselves religious of
the Trinity; why not say, that your daughters are as much religious as
the nuns, called here daughters of God[32]; and that you are as much of
my order of the Holy Ghost as my knights and myself? For my part, I
would as soon, or rather, be called Jesuit, than Augustinian or
Dominican. As to the churchmen, who except against them, ignorance has
always borne a grudge to learning; and I observed, when I began to
speak of re-establishing the Jesuits, that two sorts of persons opposed
this design; those of the pretended reformed religion, and churchmen of
irregular conduct, which has gained them still greater credit and
reputation. If the Sorbonne you talk of has condemned them, it was,
quite like you, without knowing them; and, if the old Sorbonne would
not own them out of jealousy, the new Sorbonne is very proud of, and
esteems them; if {75} they were not fixed in France before, God has
reserved for me the honour, which indeed I esteem a favour, of settling
them; and, if they were only provisionally admitted heretofore, they
shall henceforward have a permanent settlement, both by edict and
arret. The will of my predecessors kept them here, mine shall establish
them. The university opposed them, either because they excelled others
(witness the vast concourse of scholars to their colleges), or because
they were not incorporated in the university, which will not be refused
when I order it; and when I shall see that they stand in need of being
better regulated. You say, that the greatest men of your parliament
have learned nothing from them: if the oldest are the most learned, you
are certainly right; they had ended their studies before the Jesuits
had opened their schools. Other parliaments, I am credibly informed, do
not say so; nor, indeed, does all yours. They teach better than others;
that is the true reason why, since their absence, your University is
quite abandoned, and students {76} flock after these masters to Douay,
and other places, within and without my kingdom. You say, they engage
the brightest geniuses, they examine and pick out the best for their
society: I commend them for it. When I raise troops, I chuse those who
are likely to turn out the best soldiers. Were there no room for favour
amongst you, would you admit any, but what were worthy of being
members, and of having a seat in your parliament? I heartily wish you
received such only as are quite deserving, and that virtue were always
the badge and distinctive mark in posts of honour. If the Jesuits
served the public with ignorant masters and preachers, you would
despise them; and now, that they employ in your service men of wit and
capacity, you are not pleased. As to the great estates, you say, they
possessed, it is all calumny and imposture; and I very well know, by
the account of the estates re-annexed to the crown, that seven or eight
masters could not be maintained at Bourges and Lyons; whereas, when the
Jesuits were there, they were thirty or forty {77} in number. But
should there be any difficulty in this respect, I have provided against
it in my edict. To call them a _factious society_, for being concerned
in the _league_, is a reproach that falls only on the times. They
thought they did well: many others were concerned, with whom they were
mistaken and deluded; and they own now, that they have found my
intentions quite contrary to what they had preconceived. But, I am
inclined to believe, they acted with less malice than others, and that
the same disposition, with the favours they receive from me, will make
them as affectionate to me, even more so, than they ever were to the
_league_. It is objected, they get footing in cities and towns by all
means they can: so do others: I myself got into my kingdom as well as I
could. It must be owned, that, with their wonderful patience and
regular way of life, they may compass what they will; and _their great
care not to change or alter any thing in their institute will be the
cause of their stability and long continuance_. The vow of obedience
they make {78} to the pope will not subject them more to his will, than
the oath of allegiance they have taken to me will bind them not to
undertake any thing against their natural sovereign. But their vow does
not extend to every thing, as is vainly pretended; they only make a vow
of obeying the pope, when he is pleased to send them to labour for the
encouragement of infidels; and, in fact, the Indies are converted by
them. As to the opinion of the pope, I know he esteems them greatly; so
do I. But you do not tell me, that the pope was upon the point of
seizing cardinal Bellarmine's Works, at Rome, for not allowing him as
great an extent of jurisdiction as other divines do: and you studiously
conceal what the Jesuits have lately maintained, that, though the pope
could not err, Clement might be mistaken. Upon the whole, I am
persuaded, that they say no more than others of the papal authority;
and that, if opinions are to be tried, you must quarrel with those of
the catholic church. It is said, that the king of Spain employs
Jesuits; I tell you, that I am {79} determined to do the same; why
should France fare worse than Spain? Since all the world judges them
useful to the public, let me tell you, I think them necessary to my
kingdom. As to the doctrine, imputed to them, of withdrawing churchmen
from obedience to sovereigns, or teaching subjects to attempt on their
lives, it is proper to see, on one side, what they say, and, on the
other, what they teach their scholars. What convinces me there is no
such thing is, that, for these thirty years past, that they have taught
in France, above fifty thousand scholars have been brought up in their
colleges, have conversed and lived with them, and not one has yet been
found, in that vast number, who pretends to have heard any such
discourse among them, or any thing coming up to the doctrine with which
they are reproached. What is more, ask protestant ministers, that have
lived and studied under them, how the Jesuits live: to be sure, they
will not spare them, were it only to justify their leaving the society.
I know the question has been put to many, and nothing {80} could ever
be got from them, but that their conduct and morals were without
exception. Barriere was not encouraged, as you pretend, by any Jesuit.
The first notice of that attempt I had from a Jesuit: another told him,
he would be damned if he dared to go upon any such design. Chatel never
accused them, nor could any torments extort any charge against Varade,
or any other Jesuit. If any one had been accused, how came you to spare
him? The other Jesuit, that was seized, was taken up on account of some
printed papers found in his chamber. After all, though a Jesuit had
done that foul deed, which I am resolved to forget, must all the
Jesuits suffer, must all the apostles be banished for one Judas? At
that time God was pleased to humble and to save me, for which I give
him thanks: he teaches me to forgive all offences; and I have done it,
freely and willingly, for his sake. I pray daily for my enemies; so far
am I from remembering what is past, as you advise me to do, not very
like good Christians, for which I do not thank you. {81} The Jesuits
are natives of my kingdom, and born my subjects; I will not harbour any
suspicion against those whom their birth has placed under my
government; and, if there should be any danger of their communicating
my secrets to the enemies of France, I will take care to let them know
only what I think fit. Let me manage this affair; I have gone through
many others much more difficult: and now I charge you to think of
nothing farther, than doing what I bid and command you to do."
With such a speech in existence, is it not a disgrace to any man to cite
against the society the remonstrance that gave occasion to it? I have done,
then, with this writer's impure and disgraceful authorities; and I should
here proceed immediately to the respectable, the noble, the brilliant list
of authorities in favour of the Jesuits, but that I feel it proper
previously to notice another attack upon them, from a very unexpected
quarter, from one whom we are almost compelled to consider as an unbiassed
{82} assailant, since (besides being a gentleman and a member of the
legislature) he does, in the very act of aiming the blow which he gives,
profess the highest admiration, respect, and regard for them. "I am ready
to admit," says sir John Hippisley, "the merit of that body of catholics,
as far as they are exercised in the secular walk of philosophical and
classical instruction; their schools and seminaries have been the most
celebrated," &c. Again; "It pains me to speak, in these terms, of a
community, comprehending many highly respected ecclesiastics, and, in the
bosom of which, many of my valuable friends have received their education,"
&c. But sir John's "sense of duty overcomes his individual
partialities[33]."
In consistency with these professions, sir John seems desirous of confining
his objections to some particulars; but he was unable to conceal how
willing he is to lay his axe to the tree, root {83} and branch; for he
inserts a note to his speech, in which, not satisfied with protestant
objections, he luxuriates in the citation of the "burning of more than
fifty publications of Jesuit authors by _the common hangman_;" in the
naming of the authors, whose books were burned; and in recording the very
terms of the sentence: _seront laceres et brules, dans la cour du palais,
par l'executeur de la haute justice_ (the high office translated by sir
John _common hangman_) _comme seditieux, destructifs de toute principe de
la morale Chretienne, enseignant une doctrine meurtriere et abominable,
non-seulement contre la surete de la vie des citoyens, mais meme contre
celle des personnes sacrees des souverains_. To which is added, a reference
to a _Portuguese_ work, for a complete list of the books burned. So much
for sir John's _sorrow_ in speaking, in the milder terms of his harangue,
on his particular objections, and for _the preference_ he would have given
to having his statement _reserved_ for the consideration of a _select
committee_. The reader, long before he arrives at this {84} preference of
secret publicity, will have learned, from good authority, how to appreciate
both the sentence and the judges that pronounced it; which sir John, by his
recording it, appears not to have been able to do, in spite of _the number
of his friends_, to whom he might have applied for information of the
spirit that inflamed the parliament of Paris. But let us see the particular
objections made by Sir John Hippisley. Sir John states, that the general of
the order being a Russian, the acknowledgment of him by Jesuits in other
states is an instance of dependence upon foreign jurisdiction. From this
objection, it is to be presumed, that sir John credits the complete
despotism, and other horrors, which have been attributed to the character
of the general, as well as the prostitution of reason and virtue in all the
members of the order, in consequence of the vow of obedience. And he
evidently apprehends, that, if we go to war with Russia, the constitution
of Great Britain will be endangered by the plots of Jesuits in this
country! "We are," says he, "at this hour, {85} on terms of amity with
Russia; within how short a period was it otherwise?" In neither country is
catholicism the established religion, yet sir John sees, that Jesuits may
busy themselves so foully with Greeks and Lutherans, that the pope will be
brought in. The objection is really absurd; but, on the _despotism_ of the
general, and the _blind_ obedience of the companions of the order, I shall
make some remarks, when I consider the institute itself; at present, I
shall only repeat, that these are calumnies to which no man would be a
dupe, who had ever cast his eye over the pages of that almost inspired body
of religious and moral statutes. The general, as well as the members of the
community, is bound by those laws. A general congregation may be assembled,
without his consent, and in defiance of him, to make laws against him: and
"blind obedience is a sacrifice of passion, not of reason; Jesuits are to
obey blindly, only when they see clearly, that they may do so without a
crime, nay, without the slightest fault." The obedience which all
religious, as well as Jesuits, paid to their chief {86} superior, who
generally resided at Rome, was well understood to relate merely to their
professional duties. It was first made an object of jealousy, exclusively
with regard to the Jesuits, at the time that the parliaments were studying
every mode of making them odious; and, before that time, the native country
of their general was a matter of indifference. The native country of the
pope was never alleged as a motive for rejecting his authority. The
obedience of the Jesuits was voluntary; and they knew, from their
institute, that it never could supersede the duty which they owed to the
government under which they lived. Can sir John adduce a single instance of
a Jesuit's betraying the country, or the government, which protected him?
The first superiors of the French Jesuits were Spaniards and Italians. The
superior of the Venetian Jesuits, during the famous contest between that
state and Paul V, was a Frenchman.
In friendly consideration for the instructors of his numerous valuable
friends, sir John informs {87} the House of Commons, that, though the
empress of Russia countenanced the re-organization of the society within
her dominions, "it was in a degraded state, to suit the views of her
policy;" and, in a note, he informs the world at large, that "a
correspondent of great consideration observed, that the empress was well
pleased with the opportunity of snapping her fingers (_narguer_) at the
courts of Versailles and Madrid, and showing them and the world at large,
that she could render the institution tractable by her superior authority
and management; that is, that she could tame wild beasts, which _they_ were
forced to destroy[34]." It is not for me to {88} divine by what means sir
John, or his correspondent, obtained such possession of the secrets of
Catherine's mind, as to be able to decide, in the face of the world, that
her conduct, in saving the Jesuits, was guided by petty motives of private
interest, and especially the secret desire _de narguer_, in plain English
to jeer and jibe, to fleer and flout, the French and Spanish courts; but,
if so, it evidently supposes some previous cause of dissatisfaction with
those courts. What that cause was it is for sir John or his correspondent
to state: to the generality of men, I believe, it remains a mystery. I am
ignorant of any such cause, and, being in the class of ordinary observers,
I ascribe the conduct of the empress to the more generous motives, which
she and her two successors have avowed to the world. These are, the duty of
providing for their catholic subjects suitable ministers and teachers;
their knowledge {89} that the Jesuits of White Russia are such; their
abhorrence of the injustice, which would strip them of their property, of
their civil state and profession, and abolish their canonical existence,
without any proof of crime or misdemeanour; and, finally, their royal word
and faith pledged to maintain inviolably the _status quo_ of the catholic
religion and its ministers, as settled in the _pacta conventa_ of the
cession of White Russia to their dominion[35]. These motives {90} have
something in them honourable, generous, and dignified. I revere the
empress, who, acting upon them, could at once read a lesson of justice to
other monarchs, and rescue from destruction a remnant of the persecuted
society. Instead of attributing to her the paltry spirit _de narguer_, I
will, with sir John's permission, apply to her the praise which Cicero
addressed to Caesar, in his oration for Marcellus: "Nobilissimam familiam,
jam ad paucos redactam, pene ab interitu vindicasti!" Sir John will not
refuse her this compliment, when he discovers the extraordinary inaccuracy
into which he has been betrayed by his informer. He asserts[36], that
Catherine "secured the tractability of these {91} restless men by the _sine
qua non_ of the residence of their general, _a subject_, within the state."
It is true, that their general could not conveniently reside in any other
state; but my information emboldens me to affirm, that no restraint
whatever was laid upon the Jesuits, in the election of their generals; that
they have already elected five in Russia, all of whom have been
_foreigners_. The three first were Poles, of whom one, named by sir John,
F. Carew, was of British extraction. Their late general, Gruber, was an
Austrian; the present superior is a Prussian, and is actually expected at
Rome.
In a detail of restrictions he mentions the superintendence of the
seminaries being consigned to the ministry of public inspection, and
asserts, that priests of the _Greek_ national church are directed to attend
the Jesuit colleges, to instruct the pupils of the Greek communion in
religion. I am unacquainted with the weight of authority to be allowed to
sir John's correspondent; but, certainly, the result of my inquiries
differs {92} widely from the information communicated by him. The Jesuits
have, ever since their establishment in Russia, been treated with
unsuspecting liberality. The integrity of their institute has been
scrupulously maintained, and the authority given to the catholic archbishop
of Mohilow has ever been exactly confined within the limits prescribed by
the council of Trent. By a law of the present emperor, all colleges were
subjected to the control of the university of Petersburgh. The Jesuits,
feeling the inconvenience of this, soon had their own chief college of
Polosk erected into a university, by which they became exempted from the
temporary control. They have an establishment at Petersburgh, called the
"College of Nobles," into which young noblemen only are admitted as
pensioners, and these are educated in the regular collegiate discipline,
whatever be their religion. They attend at divine service, and at public
catechisms and instructions. The majority of them are of the national
religion, and, if their parents or they themselves desire it, the {93}
superior of the Jesuits permits a priest of the Greek church to come to the
college on Sunday, where he explains the national catechism to them in a
private room. Beyond this he has nothing to do in the house. This practice
may be known at court, but it was neither enjoined nor recommended by the
court. This is the account I have collected of the Jesuits in Russia, and,
I am persuaded, that they are not more restricted than the catholics in
general, whom sir John appears to attack through the Jesuits, for in this
long note (page 36), which seemed exclusively designed for the exposure of
their Russian degradation, he slides unexpectedly into an exposure of "the
restrictions, which attach _generally_ upon the exercise of the Roman
catholic discipline." In this I have here no part to take, the general
question has passed through abler hands than mine; my subject confines me
to the society of the Jesuits, and in so doing calls upon me to notice the
advertisement prefixed to sir John Hippisley's Speech. In that
advertisement we find it to be sir John's opinion, {94} that the bull of
Pius VII, by which the order of Jesuits is restored, should not be
published without the rescript of Clement XIV, by which it was suppressed,
as a pendant; and, in a style of triumphant irony, he leaves it to the
consideration of an author favourable to the society[37], on comparing the
pontifical acts, "whether he can advantageously take the field against the
memorable rescript of Ganganelli, and enter the lists with the living
writers _of his own communion_, who espouse that deliberate pontifical act;
for," says he, "it does not appear, that the denunciation pronounced by the
bull of Pius VII has extinguished the ardour of the opponents of the
constitution, which he has so solemnly re-embodied. Two publications on the
subject have issued from the French press, since the date of this bull,
namely, _Du Pape et des Jesuites_, and, _Les Jesuites tels qu'ils ont ete
dans l'Ordre Politique, Religieux, et Moral_. {95} The first is ascribed to
the pen of a _Pere de l'Oratoire_, the other announced as the work of _M.
S***, Ancien Magistrat_. A perusal of these tracts," continues sir John,
"and especially the brief of Pius VII, will lead to the discovery, whether
the society have been most successfully attacked or defended by the French
writers or by Mr. Plowden."
The Jesuits are more obliged to sir John for this position of the subject
than, I believe, he meant they should be. I cannot judge of Mr. Plowden's
success, not having seen his publication, but I think and hope to find it
complete, from sir John's own statement in this advertisement. I am also
unacquainted with the two _overpowering_ French pamphlets alluded to; but
their titles and authors are enough to convince me, that the new conspiracy
against the Jesuits extends to France, that I am answering the pamphlets
without seeing them, and that they are nothing more than the _crambe
repetita_, the dying echoes, of the Jansenists, {96} parliamentarians, and
jacobins. Can sir John have read the accounts, to be found in various
authors, of the persecution of the Jesuits, and not suspect the very
appellations of _Father of the Oratory_, and _Ancient Magistrate_? If he
does me the honour to read this sketch, he will, I hope, know what value to
set upon them. But what surprises me most is, that he does not seem to be
aware, that the Jesuits had always enemies _in their own communion_, for,
by underlining these words, he shows, that he thinks it a strong proof of
guilt when Roman catholics espouse the suppression of the order. A moment's
reflection will bring to his mind, that the most powerful of the ancient
conspiracy against the Jesuits were, at least, professed catholics; the
Arnauds, the Pasquiers, the Monclars, the Chalotais; not to mention the
D'Alemberts, Diderots, Condorcets, who, indeed, though educated catholics,
were professed atheists or deists. The same may be said of Vatel, and some
others cited by sir John. Vatel was a fanatical deist; Dupin a notorious
Jansenist; Pereira a devoted creature {97} of Pombal. Envious men, and
philosophers, do not spare others because they are of the same religious
communion. If this motive prevailed, much sparring and abuse would be saved
among protestants as well as among catholics. But, to come to the principal
point of view, in which sir John's advertisement has happily placed the
cause of the Jesuits.
History shows us, that, however extensive and complete the power of the
popes may have been in former remote periods, they had a very difficult
part to sustain in later times, and that they were often obliged to court
the catholic monarchs, and to yield, that they might not be forced[38].
This was peculiarly the case with Clement XIV, whose philosophical name,
Ganganelli, sir John significantly shoots at us through the rifle of
_Italics_, and it was his {98} avowed policy, even before his elevation to
the pontificate, that the Jesuits were to be sacrificed, in spite of their
innocence, in spite of their religious and moral virtues, in spite of his
own attachment and approbation, to the necessity of preserving the favour
of the monarchs of Europe. "Portugal," says he, "will never give up her
opinion, in which I see other kingdoms that will confirm and support her.
Kings no longer live unconnected with one another, as formerly; they form
friendships, and act in concert; so that, if we are unfortunate enough to
offend one, we may offend all; and, instead of having one enemy to deal
with, we have all Europe upon us[39]."--"Little minds imagine, that one
must be displeased with a certain religious society, if one does not
support them in defiance of kings. But, besides that resisting the
potentates would only multiply storms for them, one would not, through
partiality to them, embroil oneself with all the catholic princes[40]."
This is pretty plain {99} language, but what follows is in more direct
terms, and, I think, is a decisive proof of the motives, which influenced
the writer in the suppression of the Jesuits, when the tiara was placed
upon his head: "Now it is, that we must make use of that wisdom of the
serpent which Jesus Christ recommends to his apostles. It is no doubt
grievous, that a religious brotherhood intended for colleges, seminaries,
and missions, and who have written much on the truths of religion, should
be deserted at a time when incredulity has broken loose with fury against
the religious orders; but the question to be decided before God is, whether
it is better to contend with the sovereigns than to give up a religious
society. For my part, I think, on seeing the storm that gathers howling
from all quarters, and which we perceive already over our heads, that it is
right for us to act ourselves without waiting, and to sacrifice what is
most agreeable rather than incur the anger of the sovereigns, which we
cannot too much dread. Let our holy father, {100} and his secretary of
state, love the Jesuits sincerely, I subscribe with all my heart to the
attachment they have for the society; but I shall always say,
notwithstanding my veneration for St. Ignatius, and the esteem in which his
disciples are held, that it is very dangerous, nay, very rash, to, support
the Jesuits in the present circumstances[41]." These sentiments of cardinal
Ganganelli would not serve well for a pendant to the brief of Clement XIV,
yet, for the sake of truth and justice, they should be always printed
together, and go down side by side to posterity. Where now is "the
formidable array of pontiffs," which show that Ganganelli "is not the
solitary impugner," among popes, of the order of Jesuits? Ganganelli tells
you, that they were tossed on a stormy sea, where they were obliged to
manage their sails dexterously, that they might not sink themselves; and,
in the very rescript which sir John has hung by the side of Pius VII's bull
{101} in his appendix, he declares, that it blew so hard from the four
quarters, France, Spain, Portugal and Sicily (see page 24), that he was
under the necessity of throwing the Jesuits overboard: "Our dear sons in
Jesus Christ," says he, "having made known their _demands_ and _wills_ in
this matter."
Clement XIV vainly flattered himself, that, by making ample concessions to
the importunity of the combined ministers, by persecuting the Jesuits in
detail, contrary to his own conviction, he should, in the end, escape the
necessity of crushing them altogether. It was the policy of Pontius Pilate.
His whole reign was one series of vexatious treatment; even outrages
against them. From the first day of his pontificate they were the only
Christians excluded from access to the common father. His condescension
only betrayed his weakness, and enhardened the ministerial conspirators.
When, at length, he found it impossible to resist them, without incurring
the loss of his states, "he gave sentence, {102} that it should be as they
required[42]." He resorted to the principle of the high priest, in St.
John, chap. ii, verse 50, the expediency of which is so clearly announced
in his Letters[43]. But here three things sorely distressed him: the
incongruity and injustice of condemning the Jesuits without a trial, which
he knew the ministers would not permit; the approbation of their institute
by the council of Trent; and the concurring approbation of the order by
nearly twenty popes, especially the very recent constitution, or bull, of
his immediate predecessor, Clement XIII, solemnly published, and received
by the whole church. The applicants for the destruction of the order
undertook to remove his scruples.
I am obliged to sir John for drawing my attention to Ganganelli's brief,
which I might otherwise have passed over without much {103} scrutiny. He is
of opinion, that it should accompany the bull of the reigning pontiff; but
some connoisseurs may think, that it will show to more advantage exhibited
between the just mentioned bull _apostolicum_ of Clement XIII and that of
Pius VII: it would thus have a pendant on each side, eliciting, by a double
contrast, all the effects of art. The bull apostolicum formed a principal
objection to the grand plan of destruction, not easy to be evaded. It was
so recent, so public, so solemn, so decisive. It was a distinct and
specific approbation and confirmation of the society of Jesus; it repeated
the sentiments of all popes from Paul III; it was solicited by hundreds of
bishops; it was formally communicated to the college of cardinals, and was
applauded by them all; it was accepted by every catholic bishop; it had
every character of a formal judgment of the whole catholic church. Clement
XIV and his advisers dared not to contradict it by another bull; it would
have been a great scandal. The cardinals could not have concurred in it.
The inferior, {104} and less authoritative, mode of _brief_, or private
letter, or rescript, in which it was not usual to consult the cardinals,
was adopted. In this, the difficulty presented by the apostolicum of
Clement XIII is overleaped in a short and peremptory way, by an absurd
declaration of its having been _extorted rather than granted_, without any
proof, and in defiance of the number of circumstances which demonstrate the
contrary. As sir John appears to be unacquainted with this famous
constitution of Clement XIII, published in the beginning of 1765, and as it
is perhaps the best written official document which Rome has, for many
years, sent forth, it shall be inserted in the Appendix in its original
language[44].
The more I consider Ganganelli's rescript, the more am I surprised at the
pitiful attempts made to lay down something like an apology for injustice,
and the more am I disgusted with its want of principle. It opens with a
long narration {105} of the suppression of various small religious
associations by ancient popes, but it leaves us quite in the dark as to the
justice or injustice of those several suppressions. It informs us, that
several complaints had been made, at several times, to several popes, of
the Jesuits; but it omits to tell us, that those complaints had always been
either rejected, or refuted, or disregarded, by those several popes, whose
public acts attest that they were, one and all, friends and supporters of
the society[45]. The brief then recites the _jus_, or leading maxim, on
which the whole procedure hinges, and which, in spite of {106} the Roman
canon, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, solves the pope's first
difficulty, or scruple, of punishing without trial: it is this; that _the
slow and fallible method of proceeding before courts of justice must be
avoided_; that _reliance must be placed_ WHOLLY _on that plenitude of
power, which popes possess in so eminent a degree, as vicars of Christ upon
earth, and as sovereign moderators of the Christian republic_; and that
_regular orders, which they propose to suppress_, ought not to be allowed
_the faculty of producing any arguments in their defence, or of clearing
themselves from the heavy accusations brought against them_. These are the
words of the brief, as given by sir John in the translation of it in the
Appendix to his Speech; in other words, _the accused may be punished
without being heard_. This requires no comment; every British heart will
suggest a just one.
Let us now see how Ganganelli gets over the difficulty arising from the
approbation of the council of Trent. To the eternal disgrace of {107} this
brief, then, we find the operative or suppressing clause made to depend
upon a paltry sophism. Stating the _demands_ and _wishes_ of his dear sons,
the kings and ministers, with the addition of pressing solicitations from
some bishops and other persons, Clement, for a salvo to his conscience,
declares (page 25), "that to choose the wisest course, in an affair of so
much importance, he determined not to be precipitate, but to take due time
to _examine attentively_, _weigh carefully_, and _wisely debate_ upon it."
What was done? "_First of all_," continues the brief, "we proposed to
examine upon what grounds rested the common opinion, that the institute of
the clerks of the company of Jesus had been approved and confirmed in a
special manner by the council of Trent! And we found, that, in the said
council, nothing more was done, with regard to the said society, than to
except it from the general decree respecting other orders. The same council
declared, that _it meant not to make any change or innovation in the
government of the clerks of the company of Jesus, that_ {108} _they might
not be hindered from being useful to God and his church, according to the
intent of the pious institute approved by the holy see_." If the lines in
italics are not an especial approval and confirmation of the institute,
then must I confess, that I know not the meaning of the words _approval_
and _confirmation_. To my understanding they convey a most decided
approbation and confirmation of the institute. Well, what succeeds the
_imprimis_? What does the pontiff next examine, weigh, and debate
attentively, carefully, and wisely? The reader will look in vain for the
second head of wise deliberation; the actuating assertion immediately
follows: "actuated by _so many_ and important considerations," &c. &c., and
_impelled by fear_, for that is the import of the following sentences, "WE
DO SUPPRESS AND ABOLISH THE SAID COMPANY." The only possible apology, that
can be made for Clement, in this rescript, is, that he acted, as lawyers
term it, under duress. After his own avowal, while a cardinal, can any man
doubt, that he {109} imagined that the intrigues going on in France, Spain,
Portugal, and Sicily, against the Jesuits, would prove fatal to the power
of Rome, if the society were protected? The whole of the preamble of his
rescript consists of the approbation of his predecessors, and the appeals
of the intriguers of the nations around him against the Jesuits. At last,
the _Inquisition_[46] of Spain (see page 20), press so strongly, that
Sixtus V determines to examine the matter; but he is saved the misfortune
by death, and his successor, Gregory XIV, approves of the institution of
the society in its utmost extent, confirms their privileges, and ordains
that, under pain of excommunication, all proceedings against the society
should be quashed (page 21). In short, neither in the multifarious
preamble, nor in the short actuating clause, does Clement XIV once advance
an opinion of his {110} own adverse to the society; but throughout lends
himself to the representations of foreign cabals, to which he at last
confessedly sacrifices them.
All, then, that this rescript proves is, that powerful parties prevailed,
in certain states, against the Jesuits, and that Clement XIV,
notwithstanding the _approval_ and _confirmation_ of the council of Trent,
evinced by their declaration, as above cited; notwithstanding the approval
and confirmation of successive popes; notwithstanding his own approval and
regret (all clearly inserted in this rescript); found himself compelled, by
the pressure of unjust and arbitrary power, to withhold his confirmation,
to suppress and abolish a society, to whom he knew it was doubtful, whether
religion and piety or science and letters were more indebted.
Such is the analysis of the luminous brief of destruction, so triumphantly
referred to by sir John Hippisley; such the sanction of peace {111} and
amity with the philosophical ministers, Pombal, Choiseul, Aranda, &c. The
pontifical domain was to be saved; the portions of it already seized,
Avignon, Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, &c., to be restored; the turbulent Jesuits
extinct, harmony and concord were to bless the earth! How were these
glorious prospects realized? Every succeeding year involved the Roman see
in fresh troubles: new invasions of its spiritual and temporal rights
continued to distress the succeeding pontiff, Pius VI, and, at last,
conducted him to death in a dungeon, although, to save his domain from the
grasp of violence, he had consented, that Ganganelli's brief should subsist
unaltered.
It is now evident, that the suppression of the Jesuits was the result of
the conspiracy formed against them; in Spain and Sicily by the Inquisition,
in Portugal by Pombal, and in France by the Jansenists, the parliaments,
and philosophers: how just and wise we have seen; let us now inquire whence
results their restoration {112} by Pius VII. "The catholic world demands,
with unanimous voice, the re-establishment of the society of Jesus. We
daily receive, to this effect, the most pressing petitions, from our
venerable brethren, the archbishops and bishops[47], and the most
distinguished persons, especially since the abundant fruits, which this
society has produced in the above countries (Russia and Sicily), have been
generally known." There is a striking contrast between the simplicity and
direct language of this bull, and the artful and complicated expositions
with which Ganganelli labours in his brief to lull his own conscience, and
to justify, in the sight of others, the act he thought to be necessary. And
why is the re-establishment of the society demanded? From a hope, that they
may counteract the evils, which the neglect of religious education has
suffered to spread over the world, and from a {113} conviction that they
were put down by the disciples of a false philosophy combining with the
vilest of passions. In regard to protestant countries, their principles of
loyalty are conclusive in their favour; and, in spite of the popish plots,
it has been proved, that their religious doctrines never led them, as a
body, to interfere in political affairs. These motives for their
re-establishment, and my last observation, naturally remind me, that it is
time to state the authorities, so highly honourable to the society, which I
have been induced to examine and collect; there are, however, two other
circumstances mentioned by sir John Hippisley, which I cannot pass over
without notice. He objects to students for the priesthood among the Jesuits
being sent abroad, to Sicily, to obtain ordination, instead of receiving it
at the hands of their own national prelates. It appears, by this, that sir
John is not aware that, in an order, it is requisite to obtain ordination
through a superior of the order. {114}
In all religious orders, candidates for priesthood must be presented by
their proper religious superior to some bishop. The prelate may examine the
candidate; and, if he has no canonical objection, he promotes him to orders
on the title of religious poverty; the superior, or the order, remaining
answerable for his maintenance. But no priest of the regulars can assume
any exercise of ministerial functions, in preaching, or administering
sacraments, without licence of the diocesan prelate, who may examine,
suspend, and correct him, incurring thus a certain responsibility. Of this
subjection of regulars to the established prelates, surely, sir John must
have been aware; why, then, endeavour to alarm us with the prospect of
Jesuits colonizing in the south of Italy, for the purpose of overspreading
these islands? I have reason, upon recent inquiry, to suspect, that sir
John has been misled by his Sicilian informer, as to the voyagers for the
priesthood; and the supposed system of seeking {115} furtive ordinations
beyond the seas will vanish before a plain relation of a few trifling
facts. In 1806 an ecclesiastical student, _on account of his health_,
embarked for Naples in a neutral ship, which touched at Palermo, where he
remained, having learned that Buonaparte had seized on Naples: he was
joined, the next year, by another student, who went abroad from the same
motive, that of health. To be of use to their catholic countrymen, whose
number was daily increasing, by the arrival of new regiments, they entered
into holy orders, though, it appears, they were not allowed to officiate as
priests among them. These recovered their health, and returned home. In the
course of the three ensuing years, one priest, and ten students, who were
impressed with a strong desire to study in a catholic university, went
also, at different times, to Palermo, where they experienced a similar
disappointment in their zeal. Two of the students left Sicily before they
were ordained, and one died before ordination, leaving nine, the whole
number {116} ordained. The priest also died abroad. So that, instead of
nineteen, there were altogether only nine, who obtained orders: one of
these is the distinguished president of the new seminary of education in
Ireland. For the last six years, not one catholic student has had a thought
of following their example. Such trifling occasional emigrations of a few
students will neither alarm nor surprise those who know, that, for more
than two centuries, the penal laws have driven all English and Irish
catholics, who were not content to live in ignorance at home, to seek
education abroad; that this had become an invariable custom; and that every
year scores of British subjects went abroad.
Sir John also objects to the Jesuits' appropriating any pecuniary resource,
arising from the wreck of their society, to the uses of a seminary of
education; he thinks it opposite to the principle, which gave birth to the
institution of Maynooth; and is for seizing, and {117} bestowing on
Maynooth, thirty thousand pounds of their money, which they are said to
have generously transmitted to Ireland, for the establishment of a place of
education (page 39 of the printed Speech). How would this agree with that
spirit of humanity, benevolence, and hospitality, to say nothing at present
of justice, which prompted the genius of Britain to give an asylum to these
persecuted servants of God, against the relentless fury of jacobins and
philosophers? Besides, the institution of Maynooth, and the establishment
intended differ widely: the college of Maynooth is particularly designed
for clerical education; that to which the thirty thousand pounds is to be
devoted is to be a seminary for general learning; an establishment, which
must be attended with most salutary consequences to Ireland, where it will
prevent emigration of the catholic youth, and where, with religion and
knowledge, it will undoubtedly confirm and spread the spirit of _loyalty_.
It would be, I was going to say, madness; it would surely be unwise, to
check, {118} on old worn-out prejudices, the happy growth of a spirit,
which has, in that country, met much to struggle with, and only wants to be
enlightened to show itself as firm and ardent as in any part of the empire.
After all, I have good grounds to know, that sir John is misinformed
respecting the source of the gift of thirty thousand pounds to the new
seminary: _no money has been recently transmitted from the society here to
Ireland_. The sum, on which the new house of education is rising, _was not
secured by the Jesuits from the wreck of the society_: it is, strictly, the
_private property_ of a free Briton. This, I am informed, on good
authority, is the fact; but, supposing it had been saved by the Jesuits
from the ruin of their continental establishments, from which they were so
cruelly turned adrift, and plundered by despots, because they were
Englishmen; nay, supposing every guinea of it had been coined at the mint
of _king Nicolas of Paraguay_, could this authorize sir John to assume the
despotic {119} principle of a foreign minister, a Pombal, a Choiseul, and
to decide at once, _de son chef_, in the land of liberty, that his
unoffending fellow subjects, who, under the safeguard of the laws, are
prosecuting an honourable profession, shall again be stripped and subjected
to arbitrary confiscation? If the Ganganellian maxim, that "the accused may
be plundered without being heard," be tolerated at Rome, in the "_plenitude
of power_, which the pope possesses, as moderator of the Christian
republic," it is far otherwise in this happy land, where men, no longer
persecuted for their religious opinions, maintaining their _sworn_
allegiance to their king, are sure for their persons and property to find
safety in the laws, and protection from the sovereign.
I have spoken of sir John Hippisley's opinions freely; I trust I have not
done it coarsely. I was greatly surprised to find him taking the part he
does. Of Clement XIV I feel inclined to speak more harshly than I have. I
remember being pleased with his Letters when I was a {120} boy, upon the
same principle that I was pleased with the meeting of the _Etats Generaux_,
in 1789, at Versailles, where I was a spectator: a philosophical pope, and
a philosophical senate, were mental _bon bons_, adapted to the puerile
taste of my understanding; but, grown old, I have no relish for either.
Ganganelli degraded the tiara, and helped to prepare the French revolution.
I now return to our authorities. I have anticipated several great names
incidentally, while engaged in canvassing those cited against the Jesuits;
to these I have now to add the empress Catherine of Russia; of many popes,
Clement XIII in particular, and the very destroyer of the society, Clement
XIV; M. D'Eguilles, president of the parliament of Thoulouse; the abbe
Proyart, author of a work entitled, _Louis XVI dethrone avant d'etre Roi_;
Montesquieu, Haller, Muratori, Buffon, Grotius, Leibnitz, Bacon, Frederick
the Great, Johnson, Bausset, Richelieu, Raynal, Juan, and Ulloa; with a
multitude {121} of historians and biographers, to say nothing of the Jesuit
writers themselves. But the most striking testimony in favour of the
society, is a formal judgment given by the bishops of France on certain
articles proposed for their examination, by Louis XV, relative to the
doctrine, the government, the conduct, and usefulness of the French
Jesuits. How any man can withstand such an array of testimony, I am at a
loss to conceive; and still more how he can venture, at this time of day,
to arm himself with the calumnies and horrors of the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, to attack a body of men, and a code of regulations,
nowise accountable for the errors and crimes of individuals, at periods
when men, in general, were as inveterate on the score of religious
doctrines, as they have lately been on that of liberty and equality; when
the Catholic and the Hugonot were alike ferocious and cruel, in the
maintenance of their respective systems, though they scarcely equalled the
fury and the horrors demonstrated by the deists, atheists, and democratical
despots, who {122} preceded the settled tyranny, which has been just
overthrown by the united force of Europe. The Jesuits were, indeed, the
great preachers of the Christian religion, such as it had been received for
ages; but they are no more answerable for the opinions on regicide, murder,
and other horrid doctrines of former distracted times, than are the
Washingtons and Franklins for the atrocities of the Robespierres and Marats
in our own days of political insanity.
It will perhaps be thought necessary, that I should give something more
than the illustrious names I have cited; I shall therefore proceed to
prove, that I have not pressed them into the cause of the Jesuits, but
enrolled them on their voluntary appearance. I shall omit those, whom I
have already incidentally quoted, and arrange the others in the order in
which I have mentioned them. {123}
CATHERINE II, OF RUSSIA.
Catherine, when at Mohiloff, found, that the people of that part of her
dominions professed the catholic religion, and that they were very much
attached to the order of Jesuits. She appointed a catholic archbishop of
Mohiloff, and gave him a Jesuit as a coadjutor. She permitted, at the same
time, the establishment of a seminary of Jesuits, the direction of which
was confided to father Gabriel Denkiewitz, appointed vicar-general of his
order. In the year 1783, she sent the archbishop of Mohiloff's coadjutor,
whose name was Benelawski, to Rome, as minister from the court of Russia,
who carried a letter from her to Pius VI, demanding the re-establishment of
the society of Jesuits, which, though at the time disavowed at Petersburgh,
through deference to the Greek Christians, was actually written with her
own hand. The following passages are extracted from the letter: "I know,
that your holiness is under considerable {124} embarrassments. Your dignity
cannot harmonize with politics, so long as politics are at variance with
religion. The motives, which have induced me to grant protection to the
Jesuits, are founded in reason and justice, as well as on the hope of their
becoming useful to my states. This assemblage of peaceable and inoffensive
men shall live in my empire, because, of all catholic societies, they are
the best qualified to instruct my subjects, and to inspire them with
sentiments of humanity and the genuine principles of the Christian
religion. I am resolved to support these priests against every power
whatever; and, in so doing, I only perform my duty, as I am their
sovereign, and look upon them as faithful, useful, and innocent subjects. I
am so much the more desirous of seeing four of them invested with the power
of confirming at Moscow and Petersburgh, as the two catholic churches of
those cities are confided to their care[48]." The pope made the
circumstance {125} known to the French and Spanish ambassadors, who
consulted their respective courts, neither of which, however, chose openly
to interfere. It was an embarrassing situation for Pius VI; the suppression
of the order was too recent; he wished neither to treat the memory of
Clement XIV with disrespect, nor to embroil himself with France or Spain;
and, in complying with the request of Catherine, he acted with
circumspection and without parade. In considering this event, an obvious
remark presents itself: for upwards of thirty years past, the society of
the Jesuits have been established in Russia, yet we hear nothing of that
empire being disturbed either with religious or civil broils, fomented by
them; though I should not be surprised, if, on reflection, the death of
Paul were to be imputed, by the modern conspirators, to their machinations.
On the contrary, the internal tranquillity of that country was never more
apparent, and the improvement of the mind has made rapid strides. The
placing of the Jesuits in her dominions is a proof of the {126} sagacity of
Catherine, and I doubt whether Russia was ever more indebted to any
sovereign than for this step, which was at once magnanimous, wise, and
popular.
CLEMENT XIII.
I should not have thought of enrolling a pope among the authorities in
favour of the Jesuits, it being natural to suppose, that every pope was a
friend to the society, had I not found a list of them arrayed against them
by sir John Hippisley, on the authority of Ganganelli's rescript. Now, that
the sovereign pontiffs interfered in the proceedings and writings of the
members of the society; that they blamed them for the dissentions in which
their zeal involved them with their enemies in all parts of the world; and
that they have condemned some of the fanatical (for this is a term as
appropriate to catholic as puritan zealots), I say some of the fanatical
maxims formerly preached by individuals is not denied, and has {127} been
already noticed in these pages; and this is all that can be gathered from
the rescript; but that this renders the popes _impugners_ of the order is
far from being the fact, and for this reason it is I have been induced to
cite this pontiff, as well as his successor, in the catalogue of
authorities. By the word _impugner_, I presume, that sir John means
_assailant_; now, that the disapproval of some casuists, and the blaming of
untimely or misplaced zeal of some of the society was no assailing of the
order, the following words of Clement XIII, addressed to the archbishops
and bishops of France, will, I think, sufficiently prove: "But the thing,
which gives the deepest wound to the public weal, and to the faithful,
which is the greatest insult to the apostolic see and to you, is the
persecution they have raised against the society of Jesus, which has ever
supplied the church with many able champions, and now, by the credit of a
prevailing faction, is oppressed and dissipated. Its institute, that
institute, which the Roman catholic church, {128} assembled in the council
of Trent, approved of; that institute upon which our predecessors have
bestowed so many solemn encomiums; which has hitherto found protection and
received the most signal marks of favour from the kings of France; that
institute, which you yourselves, not so much out of gratitude as from a
principle of equity, have celebrated and publicly declared, that it was of
very singular service to you in your respective dioceses, is now loaded
with antiquated and groundless calumnies, is treated as a pest, which had
crept into the church, and is publicly burned with all the marks of
infamy[49]."
GANGANELLI.
Enough has been said of Clement XIV, in the foregoing pages, to entitle me
to place him among the authorities in favour of the Jesuits, {129} though
the solemn act, by which he extirpated the order, may be said to involve
him among their assailants. The motives and grounds of that act are clear,
and his private opinion of the order is no less manifest. Men, who approve
of this act of Clement, are not aware that they are approving of a corrupt
maxim, with which the enemies of the Jesuits calumniate the society.
Besides, the destruction of the order was a certain evil, and the good to
arise from it, the security and inviolability of the holy see, was far from
being a certain consequence; the contrary has been proved by subsequent
events. The growth of one generation sufficed to strip the tiara of the
veneration due to it, and to threaten every crown in Europe with ruin.
Philosophical universities and academies were every where, on the
continent, substituted for the colleges of the Jesuits; religion and reason
no longer went hand in hand in education; the latter, with all her spurious
offspring, was held up as the grand object and distinguishing character of
man; the former was neglected, {130} or ridiculed, and soon lost even its
name in that of superstition. In 1773, Clement XIV abolished the order: in
1793, a king of France was beheaded; Reason was deified, and altars erected
to her in various countries; anarchy followed impiety; demons were chosen
to rule, or rather to confound all order. A successor of Ganganelli was
torn from Rome, to die in captivity; and others have, since, been degraded
into tools of the most absolute and heathenish tyranny that ever existed on
the earth. It is very evident, therefore, that the preservation of the
power of Rome did not depend upon the destruction of the order of the
Jesuits, but, rather, that the rescript of 1773 was a warrant for the
imprisonment, if not the death, of Pius VI, and the subsequent overthrow of
the holy see. That rescript was, therefore, the result of a short-sighted
policy. It is impossible to read Ganganelli's Letters, and deny that he was
highly intellectual, virtuous, religious, and amiable; nor would I confound
the philosophy which he cultivated, with that which is {131} destructive of
religious hope and political order; but his whole conduct, in the affair of
the Jesuits, proves, that his soul was not formed to the honours of
martyrdom, as he was ready to act against his own conviction, and to
sacrifice principle to convenience; a maxim peculiarly impugned by Jesuits,
and by catholics in general.
In addition to the proofs of his good opinion of the society already given,
I will here insert a passage to be found in the twelfth volume of the
Annual Register. In addressing the courts of Paris, Madrid, and Naples,
after his elevation to the pontificate, he states, that, "in regard to the
Jesuits, he could neither blame nor annihilate an institute, which had been
applauded and confirmed by nineteen of his predecessors; that he could the
less do it, because it had been authentically confirmed by the council of
Trent; and that, by the French maxims, the general council was above the
{132} pope: that, if it was desired, he would call a council, in which
every thing should be discussed with justice and equity, and the Jesuits
heard in their own defence; that he owed to the Jesuits, as to all the
religious orders, justice and protection; that, besides, the states of
Germany, the king of Sardinia, and the king of Prussia, had written to him
in their behalf; and that he could not, by their destruction, content some
princes, without displeasing others." Nevertheless, without calling a
council, without hearing their defence, he destroyed them; and, certainly,
it will ever be a matter of astonishment, that, in a cause of such
magnitude, a Roman pontiff, whatever motives may have impelled him to
pronounce the suppression, could so far assimilate himself with the
ministers of Portugal, Spain, Naples, and France, as to overlook that
primary maxim, which Rome, whether Pagan or Christian, had in all ages
respected: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die,
before that {133} he, which is accused, have the accusers face to face, and
have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against
him[50]."
The writer of some anecdotes annexed to his Letters, relates one, which
shows the notoriety of the fact, that his suppression of the Jesuits was
not the effect of a bad opinion of the order: as it is applicable to the
subject I will insert it here. "While the bells were ringing, and cannon
firing, to celebrate his exaltation, the general of the Jesuits observed,
with a sigh, _there tolls our passing-bell_. Not," says the writer, "that
Ganganelli was _hostile_ to the Jesuits, but because he thought it was
_necessary_ to attend to the representations of the sovereigns."
THE PRESIDENT D'EGUILLES.
This gentleman was the Aristides of the French magistracy. I have already
mentioned {134} him, when speaking of Monclar's _Compte Rendu_[51]. His
opinion of the persecution of the society will be seen in the following
passage, which was addressed by him to Louis XV. "If the church be
incessantly outraged, by the judgments passed against the institute of the
Jesuits, the throne is still more pointedly attacked, upon the two
principal motives, which instigate the enemies of the Jesuits to work their
destruction. The first of these motives is, plainly, to deprive a society,
which is entirely devoted to the interests of its king, of the education of
youth; but more especially of the youth of the nobility. The second, which
is equally as dangerous, is, to astound all the other bodies of the kingdom
by the terrible fall of that, which seemed the most unlikely to be shaken;
and thus to make them sensible, that the hatred of the parliaments is more
to be dreaded than the protection of the king to be coveted."
{135}
ABBE PROYART.
In his work entitled "Louis XVI dethroned before he was King," speaks of
the Jesuits in these words: "The Jesuits, considered only in the light of
public teachers, were, during their existence, the first supports of the
throne."--"The destruction of the Jesuits was the ruin of the precious
edifice of national education, and gave a general shock to public
morality." The abbe, from his many testimonies in favour of the Jesuits,
being suspected to be one of their order, openly declares, "that he never
belonged to the society, and that he owed them only truth and justice, for
that he was not even indebted to them for his education."
VOLTAIRE.
I have already cited Voltaire, but I place him in the list here, for the
purpose of inserting some farther extracts from his Letters. When {136} he
was solicited by the Jansenistical magistrates to join with them in
accusing the Jesuits of the crime of regicide, he gave this remarkable
answer, in his Letter to the Atheist Damilaville: "I should rouse posterity
in their behalf, if I accused them of a crime, of which Europe, and Damiens
himself, have acknowledged them innocent." Writing, in 1765, three years
after the suppression of the Jesuits, to the same Damilaville, he thus
exults in the realized expectations of D'Alembert: "Victory declares for us
on every side. I can assure you, that, in a short time, the rabble alone
will remain under the standard of our enemies." In subsequent letters he
declares, that "a general revolution was making its appearance in every
quarter; that philosophy was gaining strength in the north of Germany; that
similar revolutions were taking place in Poland, Italy, and Spain." Such
was the rapid effect of the substitution of philosophical to religious
education! However borne away by the charms of {137} philosophy, Voltaire
was greatly attached to the Jesuits, and had the highest opinion of them:
this he fully expresses in a letter to father de la Tour, principal of the
college of Louis le Grand, where he was himself educated, which has been
already cited.
MONTESQUIEU.
Montesquieu, mentioning the government of Paraguay, then under the guidance
of the Jesuits, as an instance, among other extraordinary institutions
formed to exalt nations to virtue, alludes to the imputed ambition of the
society to govern; to which he replies, "but it will ever be a glorious
ambition to govern men by rendering them happy. It is glorious to the
society to have been the first to give, in those regions, the idea of
religion united with humanity. By repairing the devastations of the
Spaniards, they have begun to heal one of the {138} most dangerous wounds
the human race ever received. They have drawn wild people from woods,
secured them regular maintenance, and clothed their nakedness; but even,
had they done no more than add to the stock of industry among men, that
would have been doing a great deal[52]."
BUFFON.
"The missions," says this celebrated natural philosopher, "have formed more
men, in the barbarous nations, than the victorious armies of the princes,
who subjugated them. It is only in this way, that Paraguay has been
conquered: the gentleness, the good example, the charity, and the exercise
of virtue constantly maintained by the missionaries, made their way to the
hearts of the savages, and conquered their distrust and their ferocity.
They {139} would frequently come, of their own accord, and beg to be made
acquainted with the law, which rendered men so perfect; to that law they
submitted and entered into society. Nothing can do more honour to religion
than to have civilized those nations and laid the foundations of an empire,
with no other arms than those of virtue[53]."
HALLER.
"The enemies of the society," says Haller, "disparage their best
institutions: they accuse them of inordinate ambition, on seeing a kind of
empire formed by them in distant regions; but what plan can be more
delightful, or more advantageous to humanity, than to assemble human beings
scattered widely among the gloomy forests of America, to win them from the
savage state, a state of wretchedness, to put an end to their cruel and
destructive wars, to {140} enlighten their minds with the truths of
religion, and to form them into a society like the state of mankind in the
golden age? Is this not taking up the character of legislator for the
happiness of men? The ambition, that produces so much good, cannot but be a
laudable passion. No virtue ever attains that purity, which men are apt to
exact; but neither is any virtue disfigured by the passions, while these
serve to promote the general happiness[54]."
MURATORI.
It is hardly necessary to observe, that Muratori's character for talents,
piety, and virtue, stands very high in the estimation of the learned. He
was a celebrated Italian writer, a fellow of the chief academies of Italy,
of the royal society of London, and of the imperial academy of Olmutz, and
he was consulted as the oracle of {141} the age by the literati of Europe.
He was born in 1672 and died in 1750. He was unconnected with the society
of the Jesuits, and the high praises he bestows upon them could, therefore,
only have been dictated by a just esteem and admiration. The following
extracts are from his work entitled, _Il Cristianessimo felice nella
missioni de Padri della Compagnia di Gesu nel Paraguai_; a work which may
serve as a commentary on the edicts, declarations, and manifestoes, of the
court of Portugal under the dictatorship of Pombal. "I could wish, that
some one among the enemies of the church of Rome, who carry their aversion
to the Jesuits so far as to asperse the zeal of those admirable
missionaries, and their purity of intention, in the laborious functions,
which they discharge among the infidels, would only accompany them awhile
in their apostolic excursions, to see and examine what they do, and what
they suffer for the salvation of souls. He would undoubtedly, and that very
soon, lay aside former prejudices, and, perhaps, what he had seen would
suffice {142} to make him renounce his error." After enumerating, briefly,
the charges against the Jesuits of America, such as their making themselves
petty princes; engrossing the commerce of Paraguay; becoming dangerously
wealthy and powerful; bribing governors; robbing the Indians, under cover
of pleasing God, &c. &c., he says, "This is an abstract of the defamatory
reports spread about the world, either by word of mouth, or printed libels,
against the missionaries of Paraguay. I will advance nothing without clear
proofs. I am not afraid of affirming, that all these imputations are
calumnies and detestable forgeries, suggested by envy and malice." He then
proceeds to prove them to be such[55].
{143}
GROTIUS, LEIBNITZ, BACON.
This triumvirate of religion and genuine philosophy were friends and
admirers of the Jesuits; they are cited or referred to in the following
Letters, I shall therefore be satisfied with naming them here.
FREDERIC THE GREAT.
"Frederic," says the elegant scholar already twice quoted[56], "in spite of
his sceptical vanity, appeared sometimes to be convinced of the dangerous
principles of all those false philosophers, whose adulatory attentions he
was weak enough to be pleased with. In one of these moments, in which his
good sense retained the ascendency over his self-love, when the news
reached him of the proscription of the Jesuits in France, by the
confidential agents of supreme authority: 'Poor souls,' said he, 'they have
destroyed the foxes, which defended them from the jaws of the {144} wolves,
and they do not perceive that they are about to be devoured.'" Whomever the
king of Prussia meant by the wolves, it is well known, that the same
parliament that devoured the Jesuits in 1764, were equally disposed to
devour the episcopal body in 1765.
DR. JOHNSON. DEAN KIRWAN.
It is very common to speak of superstition as a shade in the character of
Johnson; and, no doubt, a modern philosopher will object to the authority
of one so bigoted as to declare, "that monasteries have something congenial
to the mind of man." Such objections, however, shall not divert me from
enrolling him here; for, the opinion he expressed relative to the
destruction of the Jesuits was the result, not of any superstitious motive,
but of that penetration, which was not to be blunted by the opposition of
prejudices. Mrs. Piozzi tells us, that, when he was at Rouen, "he conversed
with the abbe Rofette about the destruction of the Jesuits, and condemned
{145} it loudly, as a blow to the general power of the church, and likely
to be followed with many and dangerous innovations, which might, at length,
become fatal to religion itself, and shake even the foundations of
Christianity." With Dr. Johnson let me place Dean Kirwan, who often
declared, that he imbibed the noble ambition of benefiting mankind in the
college of the English Jesuits, at St. Omer's[57].
BAUSSET.
Bausset, bishop of Meth, in a Life of Fenelon, published so lately as the
year 1809, passes a comprehensive and eloquent eulogium on the society, of
which the following sentences form but a part: "Wherever the Jesuits were
heard of they preserved all classes of society in a spirit of order,
wisdom, and consistency. Called, at the commencement of the society, to the
education of the principal families of the state, they {146} extended their
cares to the inferior classes, and kept them in the happy habits of
religious and moral virtue."--"They had the merit of attracting honour to
their religious character, by a severity of manners, a temperance, a
nobility, and a personal disinterestedness, which even their enemies could
not deny them. This is the fairest answer they can make to satires, which
accuse them of relaxed morality."--"These men, who were described as so
dangerous, so powerful, so vindictive, bowed, without a murmur, under the
terrible hand that crushed them[58]."
JUAN AND ULLOA.
The very names of these travellers suggest the virtues and the praises of
the Jesuits. It was from their volumes that Robertson took his account of
the settlement of Paraguay, and I do not think it necessary here to extend
their testimony.
{147}
RICHELIEU.
When the four ministers of Charenton presented very heavy accusations
against the Jesuits to Louis XIII, cardinal Richelieu answered them all:
for the sake of brevity, I shall extract only his reply on the charge of
regicide. "As to what you say of their doctrine, with respect to the power
they attribute to the pope over kings, you would have spoken very
differently of it, if, instead of learning it from the _private writings_
of a few particulars, you had collected it from the mouth of their general,
who, in the year 1610, made a public and solemn declaration, by which he
not only disapproves, but forbids all those of his order, under very severe
penalties, to teach or maintain it lawful, under what pretext of tyranny
soever, to attempt upon the persons of kings and princes." {148}
ABBE RAYNAL.
To the foregoing testimonies, let us add that of one of the bitterest
enemies of Christianity. "The magnificence of the ceremonies," says Raynal,
"attracts the Indians to the churches, where they find pleasure and piety
united. There it is that religion is amiable, and it is at first in her
ministers that she there gains love. Nothing equals the purity of the
morals, the mild and tender zeal, the paternal solicitude, of the Jesuits
of Paraguay. Every pastor is truly the father, as well as the director of
his parishioners. There his authority is not felt, for he orders,
prohibits, and punishes, only what is punished, prohibited, and ordered by
the religion, which all of them, as well as he, worship and cherish."--"A
government in which nobody is idle, nobody works to excess; in which food
is wholesome, plentiful, and impartially partaken by all the citizens, who
are conveniently lodged, conveniently clothed; in {149} which old persons,
widows, orphans, and the sick, find a succour unknown in any other part of
the globe; in which every one marries according to inclination, and without
interest; and where large families are a comfort, without a possibility of
becoming a burthen; in which the debauchery inseparable from idleness, that
equally corrupts opulence and poverty, never accelerates the degradation,
or rather the decline of human life; in which factitious passions are never
excited, and well-regulated desires never thwarted; in which the advantages
of commerce are enjoyed; without danger of contagion from the vices
attendant on luxury; in which well-stored magazines, and mutual gratuitous
succours among nations, rendered brothers by the same religion, afford a
secure resource against the want that the uncertainty or inclemency of the
seasons may produce; in which criminal justice has never been under the
melancholy necessity of condemning a single criminal to death, to ignominy,
or to punishment of any duration; and in which the very name of a tax or of
a lawsuit is {150} unknown." Listen, I pray, to this account, from a
quarter so unsuspected, of "the _slavery_ in which the Jesuits held the
Indians of Paraguay, and the _atrocities_ which they exercised there;" for
such is the language of their assailant, whom one must be surprised to find
unacquainted with the writings of such an author as Raynal.
THE BISHOPS OF FRANCE.
There are forty-five names of bishops subscribed to a reply made by them to
certain articles proposed for their examination by Louis XV. Their judgment
is given at considerable length, and the testimony of it is too valuable to
be abridged. I have already referred the reader to the document, printed at
length, in the Appendix, at the end of this volume; to enable him, however,
to judge here of the importance of it, I will insert the articles in this
place. {151}
The first is: "Of what use the Jesuits may be in France; the advantages or
inconveniences that may attend the various functions, which they exercise
under our authority."
The second: "How the Jesuits behave, in their instructions, and in their
own conduct, with regard to certain opinions, which strike at the safety of
the king's person; as, likewise, with regard to the received doctrine of
the clergy of France, contained in the declaration of the year 1682; and,
in general, with regard to their opinions on the other side of the Alps."
The third: "The conduct of the Jesuits, with regard to their subordination
to bishops; and whether, in the exercise of their functions, they do not
encroach on the pastoral rights and privileges."
The fourth: "Whether it may not be convenient to moderate and set bounds to
the {152} authority, which the general of the Jesuits exercises in France."
The replies fully substantiate the utility of the society, the purity of
their doctrine, the regularity of their conduct, and the consistency of
their government with their duty to their king and country[59].
Such, then, is the nature of the authorities, that rank in favour of the
Jesuits; and the reader, by comparing them with the inveterate and corrupt
spirits, which have been dragged from obscurity to destroy them a second
time, will be able to estimate their respective value, and the motives of
the new conspirators against them.
Perhaps enough has incidentally appeared, in the preceding pages, to inform
the reader of the {153} chief crimes imputed to the society of the Jesuits,
and to satisfy his mind of the falsehood of the imputations, as well as of
the baseness and wickedness of the means contrived for attaching them upon
those devoted victims. Many of the imputations are also removed in the
following Letters. And when I consider, that the judgment of the bishops of
France affords, on these points, a complete refutation of the slanders
which have been lavished upon the society, I feel, that I should be wasting
time, and abusing the attention of my reader, with unnecessary repetition.
A brief notice, however, of some of the principal charges against the
society, may not be unacceptable here. Let us inquire into those of
ambition, commerce, and sedition.
In the searches which I have made, it appears to me, both from narrative of
facts, and from reasoning on the nature of things, that the society of the
Jesuits have been most basely slandered, as well as inhumanly treated. What
{154} was their ambition? The glory of God, and the edification of man.
But, say their enemies, how were these pursued? and were they always the
real objects? The Jesuits are accused of shaping their course to the
richest and most commodious countries; with extending the limits of the
church to enlarge the circle of their commerce; with preaching sedition;
with raising, on the cross, a throne to their ambition rather than to
Christ. What do we learn from reason, and from fact? The roads to all
ecclesiastical honours, all political employments, are shut to Jesuits, who
renounce the former by a formal vow, and are prohibited the latter by the
most rigorous penalties[60]. The countries, where we hear of Jesuits, are
inhabited by cannibals, by Hurons, Iroquois, Canadians, Illinoise, Negroes,
Ethiopians, Laplanders, Tartars; they are barren deserts, eternal snows,
burning sands, gloomy forests; there did these _ambitious_ men live on wild
herbs and bitter {155} roots, and cover themselves with leaves, or the
skins of wild beasts; there did they run from cave to cave by day, and
sleep at night in the hollows of rocks. Are these the abodes of luxury and
wealth? It is indeed a glorious ambition to make men happy, to teach, and
to save: such is the ambition displayed by the Jesuits, and the throne they
raised on the cross was one of faith, hope, and charity.
With respect to commerce. By the canons of the church, it is forbidden to
ecclesiastics, and, certainly, for good reasons. Commerce is a profession,
a pursuit, to which men devote their time, for the purpose of obtaining a
livelihood, and of amassing fortunes. It is a pursuit inconsistent with the
habits and duties of the ministers of religion. This is the imputation
meant to be thrown on the Jesuits, and which Pombal, their great enemy, and
the enemy of every virtue, endeavoured to fix upon them. It was not
difficult for them to repel this charge. They had a depot at Lisbon, where
{156} they kept effects, which served them instead of money. These things
were sold, as a proprietor of land would sell his corn, to support the
brothers of the order in America, who, having no income, could only be
supplied with commodities, in those savage countries. If this did not
militate against the spirit that prohibits commerce to priests, as little
did the kind of traffic which was superintended by the missionaries in
Paraguay, and which was, in fact, a species of piety. With what delight
does one read the account of it, in the Voyage of Juan and Ulloa. "The
Jesuits take upon them the sole care of disposing of the manufactures and
products of the Guaranies Indians, designed for commerce; these people
being naturally careless and indolent, and, doubtless, without the diligent
inspection and pathetic exhortations of the fathers, would be buried in
sloth and indigence. The case is very different in the missions of the
Chiquitos, who are industrious, careful, and frugal; and their genius so
happily adapted to commerce, as not to stand in need of any factors. {157}
The priests in the villages of this nation are of no expense to the crown,
the Indians themselves rejoicing in maintaining them, and join in
cultivating a plantation, filled with all kinds of grain and fruits, for
the priest; the remainder, after this decent support, being applied to
purchase ornaments for the churches. That the Indians may never be in any
want of necessaries, it is one part of the minister's care to have always
in readiness a stock of different kinds of tools, stuffs, and other goods;
so that all who are in want repair to him, bringing, by way of exchange,
wax, of which there are here great quantities, and other products. And this
barter is made with the strictest integrity, that the Indians may have no
reason to complain of oppression, and that the high character of the
priests, for justice and sanctity, may be studiously preserved. The goods
received in exchange are, by the priests, sent to the superior of the
missions, who is a different person from the superior of the Guaranies;
and, with the produce, a fresh stock of goods is laid in. The {158}
principal intention of this is, that the Indians may have no occasion to
leave their own country, in order to be furnished with necessaries; and, by
this means, are kept from the contagion of those vices, which they would
naturally contract in their intercourse with the inhabitants of other
countries, where the depravity of human nature is not corrected by such
good examples and laws[61]." This is the commerce, the only commerce
carried on by the Jesuits; a commerce, that the apostles themselves would
have maintained as a duty. I speak of the society, and of their spirit as a
body; for I am not ignorant of the scandal which was brought upon them by
the conduct of P. Lavalette, who, under pretence of augmenting the revenues
of St. Peter's, ruined the mission at Martinique, and the cause of the
Jesuits in France. What numerous body can be answerable for every
individual of it? The circumstances attending the conduct of Lavalette are
not very clear; but to contend {159} for his innocence is not necessary to
the character of the order, the purity and integrity of which, however,
derive a new demonstration from the very effect produced by his misconduct,
be the guilt of that what it may, for it exonerates all the other Jesuit
missionaries from the charge of trading. This charge had long existed,
previous to Lavalette's affair: long before had hatred been upon the watch,
and calumny active: long before had both the old and new world been full of
Jesuit missionaries, and every where were they exposed to the scrutinizing
looks of their enemies: no sooner was Lavalette denounced, than all eyes
were turned upon him, and immediately all Europe rang with his name.
Scarcely had that of the bold navigator, who discovered, or that of the
sanguinary captain, who conquered America, travelled so rapidly, or with so
much noise. Innumerable libels issued from the press, and nothing equalled
the celebrity of the subject. What is the evident inference? This: that,
although their enemies were so vigilant in observing, so skilful in {160}
detecting, so eager to expose such of the missionaries, who, in spite of
their institute, should become merchants, yet Lavalette was the only one
that had ever afforded them a shadow of proof for such a charge.
The accusation of preaching sedition, and sowing the seeds of revolt, is
equally unmerited. It is true, that the Jesuits were assiduous in
preventing all personal intercourse between the Indians and the Spaniards
and Portugueze, for which they were charged with a seditious intention of
throwing off the Spanish government. I know not that the throwing off of
governments should shock modern philosophers, or the modification of
religion disturb their brain; but I know, that very different motives are
assigned for this assiduity of the Jesuits, in excluding the Europeans from
the Indians; motives, which merit honour here and crowns of glory
hereafter. The reader will thank me for communicating them in the simple
and affecting language of the Spanish travellers last cited. "The {161}
missionary fathers will not allow any of the inhabitants of Peru, whether
Spaniards or others, Mestizos or even Indians, to come within their
missions in Paraguay. Not with a view of concealing their transactions from
the world; or that they are afraid lest others should supplant them of part
of the products and manufactures; nor for any of those causes, which, even
with less foundation, envy has dared to suggest; but for this reason, and a
very prudent one it is, that their Indians, who being as it were new born
from savageness and brutality, and initiated into morality and religion,
may be kept steady in this state of innocence and simplicity. These Indians
are strangers to sedition, pride, malice, envy, and other passions, which
are so fatal to society. But, were strangers admitted to come among them,
their bad examples would teach them what at present they are happily
ignorant of; but should modesty, and the attention they pay to the
instructions of their teachers, be once laid aside, the shining advantages
of these settlements would soon come {162} to nothing; and such a number of
souls, who now worship the true God in the beauty of holiness, and live in
tranquillity and love (of which such slender traces are seen among
civilized nations), would be again seduced into the paths of disorder and
perdition."--"Hence it is, that the Jesuits have inflexibly adhered to
their maxim of not admitting any foreigners among them: and in this they
are certainly justified by the melancholy example of the other missions of
Peru, whose decline from their former happiness and piety is the effect of
an open intercourse[62]." It is also true, that the Indians did revolt, if
that term can be applied to an act rendered unavoidable by the horrid
avarice and despotism, which had conspired to sacrifice these happy and
innocent tribes; but so far were the Jesuits from being instigators of the
revolt, that they were in danger of being the victims of it, of which they
were well aware. The facts would form a long and interesting {163}
narrative; but it is only necessary, at present, to state a few
particulars. A notion had been generated in the imagination of Pombal, the
Portugueze minister, that, in the region of those happy settlements, there
were mines of gold, unknown to the inhabitants. On these he cast his eyes,
and commenced an intrigue for exchanging that territory with Spain, for
others, at the immense distance of three hundred leagues. This being
effected, he resolved, that the whole Indian population of Paraguay should
be transported. The Jesuits were ordered to dispose the people to
transmigrate. They, at first, ventured to represent modestly the difficulty
of such a removal, and to conjure the officers of government to consider,
what an undertaking it was, to transport, over such wildernesses, thirty
thousand souls, with their cattle and effects, to a distance of nearly a
thousand miles: they were sharply told, that obedience and not
expostulation was expected. The consequences present a history, that might
draw tears from the most obdurate. Now would have been the time for the
{164} Jesuits to establish their empire, had the project imputed to them
been founded. What was their conduct? Rather than become rebels, these
faithful and humble subjects laboured earnestly to prevail upon the Indians
to obey the mandate. Their exertions, however great, were not satisfactory,
and new commands for haste were issued; a few months were allowed for an
undertaking, which, if it could be executed at all, required years. This
precipitation ruined the whole. The poor creatures, who were to be torn
from their habitations, driven to extremities, began to distrust their own
missionaries, and suspected them of acting in concert with the officers of
Spain and Portugal. From that moment they looked upon them only as so many
traitors, who were seeking to deliver them up to their old inveterate
enemies. In the course of a short time, peace, order, and happiness, gave
way to war, confusion, and misery. Those Indians, previously so flexible,
so docile, insensibly lost that spirit of submission and simplicity, which
had distinguished them, {165} and they every where prepared to make a
vigorous resistance. The contest lasted a considerable time, during which
the Indians experienced some success, but were ultimately defeated; some of
them burnt their towns and betook themselves in thousands to the woods and
mountains, where they perished miserably. After surveying all the plains,
searching all the forests, digging all the mountains, sounding all the
lakes and rivers, to establish the limits of the country, no mines were
found, and the director of the scheme, Gomez, finding himself the dupe of
his mad imagination and puerile credulity, wished it possible to conceal
his shame and prevent his disgrace, by having the treaty between the two
courts annulled. He even descended so low as to beseech the Jesuits
themselves to endeavour to effect the annulling of it. They, of course,
paid no attention to the entreaties of a man, whose insatiable avidity had
caused the ruin of thirty thousand of their fellow creatures; and it was
not till Charles III succeeded to the crown of Spain, that the treaty,
{166} of which he had never approved, was annulled. There was now an end to
the war in Paraguay, so fatal to its once happy, pious, and virtuous
population, who, in consequence of it, lost not only their property, but
their innocence, their piety, their docility, their gentleness, their
simplicity, which were superseded by European debauchery, hypocrisy, and
perfidy; vices that formed a new and almost insurmountable obstacle to the
progress of religion, in those immense regions, where, for so many years,
it had flourished[63].
Having shown the pious nature of the ambition, which inflamed the zeal of
the Jesuits; the paternal nature of the commerce, which consisted in
necessary commodities, taken in barter for the provision of their
establishments, and not in rich products, of various countries, freighted
on wealthy speculations; and having {167} shown also that their conduct, in
excluding Europeans from the Paraguay settlements, was not the effect of a
seditious disposition, I should now conclude this chapter, did I not, as I
proceed, feel more and more a desire to remove the prejudices, which an
extraordinary combination of passions and talents, operating on the
progress of human affairs, has spread over the character of men, who appear
to me to have been actuated by the sublimest motives, such as might be
attributed to angels; the glory of God, and the benefit of mankind. The
picture drawn by the abbe Barruel of one of the ex-Jesuits, who was
murdered at Avignon, in one of the revolutionary massacres, is a genuine
and convincing representation of a celestial spirit, which never could have
been nourished in a corrupt society, which must have owed its qualities to
an exalted one. This portrait cannot but be viewed with love and
admiration, and the reader would think an apology for placing it before him
superfluous. {168}
"Avignon and the Comtat had been declared, by the assembly, united to
France. Jourdan, surnamed _Coup-tete_, was at Avignon with his banditti.
The unfortunate persons shut up in the prisons were devoted by him to
death. An immense pit was opened to serve as their grave, and loads of sand
were carried thither to cover the bodies. There were six hundred prisoners
in the castle: the hour was fixed for putting them to death and throwing
them, one after the other, into the pit. There was, at Avignon, a virtuous
priest, one of those men for whom we feel, on earth, a veneration, like
that paid to the saints in heaven. His name was Nolhac; he had formerly
been rector of the noviciat of the Jesuits at Thoulouse, and was now eighty
years old. For thirty years he had been the parish priest of St.
Symphorien, a parish, which he had taken in preference, from its being that
of the poor. During all these years, spent in the town, he had been the
father and refuge of the indigent, the consoler of the afflicted, the
adviser and friend of the {169} inhabitants, and he would not listen to
their entreaties, to quit the place, on the arrival of the jacobins with
Jourdan and his banditti. He could never resolve to leave his parishoners,
deprived of their minister, in the beginning of the troubles of the schism,
and far less to leave them, deprived of the consolations of religion, while
under the tyranny of the banditti. Martyrdom, the glory of shedding his
blood for Jesus Christ, for his church, or for the faithful, were, to him,
but the accomplishment of desires and wishes, which, all his life, had been
formed in his soul, and with which he knew how to inspire his disciples,
when he was directing them in the paths _of perfection_. His life itself
had been but a martyrdom, concealed by a countenance always serene, and
always beaming angelic joy, with peace of conscience. His body, clothed
with the hair-shirt, had needed the strong constitution, with which nature
had endowed him, to support him under the mortifications, watchings, and
fasts he endured, through all the activity of a minister and the austerity
of {170} an anchorite. Daily at prayer and meditation long before light;
daily visiting the sick and the poor, whom he never left without
administering, together with spiritual consolations, temporal comforts,
confided to his hands by the faithful; always poor as to himself, but rich
for others, it was at length time to consummate the sacrifice of a life
wholly devoted to charity and to his God.
"M. Nolhac, whom the banditti themselves had hitherto held sacred, was sent
prisoner to the castle the very day before that on which the six hundred
victims were to be put to death. His appearance among those unhappy
persons, who all knew and revered him, was that of a consoling angel; his
first words were those of an apostle of souls, sent in order to prepare
them for appearing before the judge of the quick and the dead: 'I come to
die with you, my children: we are all going together to appear before God.
How I thank him for having sent me to prepare your souls to appear at his
{171} tribunal! Come, my children, the moments are precious; to-morrow,
perhaps to-day, we shall be no longer in this world; let us, by a sincere
repentance, qualify ourselves to be happy in the other. Let me not lose a
single soul among you. Add to the hope, that God will receive myself into
his bosom, the happiness of being able to present you to him, as children
all of whom he charges me to save, and to render worthy of his mercy.' They
throw themselves at his knees, embrace, and cling to them. With tears and
sobs they confess their faults: he listens to them, he absolves them, he
embraces them with that tenderness, which he always manifested to sinners.
He had the satisfaction of finding them all impressed by his paternal
exhortations. Already had that unspeakable pleasure, that peace which only
God can give, as in Heaven he ratifies the absolution of his minister on
Earth, taken place of fear on their countenances, when the voices of the
banditti were heard calling out those, who were to be the first victims,
for {172} whom they waited at the gate of the fort. There, on the right and
on the left, stood two assassins, each having an iron bar in his hands,
with which they struck their victims, as they came out, with all their
force and killed them. The bodies were then delivered to other
executioners, who mangled the limbs and disfigured them with sabres, to
render it impossible for the children and friends of the persons to
distinguish them. After this, the remains were thrown into the infernal
pit, called the ice-house. Meanwhile, M. Nolhac, within the prison,
continued exhorting and embracing the unhappy prisoners, and encouraging
them to go as they were called. He was fortunate enough to be the last, and
to follow into the presence of his God the six hundred souls, who had
carried to Heaven the tidings of his heroic zeal and unshaken
fortitude[64]."--Nolhac was a Jesuit!
* * * * *
{173}
CHAPTER III.
_Of the Order of the Jesuits, with the prominent features of the
Institute._
How many men are there, who never knew more of Jesuits than their name,
that have, from the hideous caricatures, which have been drawn of them,
imbibed such prejudices, and admitted such horrible impressions against the
society, as to render it a wonder, and with some a scandal, that any person
should dare to make the slightest attempt towards their vindication. On the
perusal of this volume, I trust, that the wonder and the scandal will
appear to be, that men should have so suffered their reason to be imposed
upon, and their feelings betrayed, as to be tamely led into the views of
the destroyers, {174} not only of this religious order, but of religion
itself, and of social order. I will endeavour here to give a faithful
miniature of the noble original, which, under distorted features, we have
been invited to ridicule and to detest. I do not, however, pretend to offer
to the reader a deep-reasoned discussion, but only a slight sketch of the
much traduced institute of the Jesuits, and of the pursuits and past
successes of the men, who devoted themselves to it.
Jesuits were never much known in this kingdom. They were never more than a
small detachment of missionary priests, privately officiating to the
scattered catholics, like other priests, sent from the English seminaries
of Rome, Douay, Valladolid, and Lisbon. They were distinguished only by
more pointed severity of the ancient penal statutes, which the wisdom and
liberality of the legislature has considerably relaxed. This greater
severity arose, not from their conduct, but from the general prejudice
against their order; and, in England, this {175} prejudice kept pace with
the esteem in which they were held in all catholic countries. Formerly,
every enemy of catholic religion was their foe declared. Their perseverance
and their successes still provoked new hostilities. It is the remark of
Spondanus, that no set of men were ever so violently opposed, or ever so
successfully triumphed over opposition. Their assiduity, in their
multifarious relations to the public, in all countries, where they had
settlements; in their schools and seminaries, in pulpits and confessionals,
in hospitals and workhouses, in the cultivation of sciences, in national
and foreign missions; all this professional business afforded them a large
field for exertion, and enabled them to recommend themselves to kings,
prelates, and magistrates, by signal services to the public, and thus to
blunt the stings of envy and the shafts of malice. The small number, which
frequented England for nearly two hundred years, in the face of the penal
laws, had no such field of action. They were confined to administer the
rites of religion to their brethren {176} in private houses; they were
necessitated to live separate; they were forced to disguise their
profession and character, and frequently their very names; they lived under
the laws, and they were not protected by the laws; they knew, that the
distorted character, drawn of them by their foreign enemies, obtained ready
credit in this country, without inquiry or examination; and, as they could
neither act nor speak in their own defence, it has happened, that the
notion of a Jesuit is to this day _vulgarly_ (I take the word in its full
meaning) associated with the idea of every crime.
In foreign countries, the Jesuits formed a conspicuous body, to which no
man was wholly indifferent. They could not be viewed with the eye of
contempt. They were highly esteemed, and they were bitterly hated. In all
catholic countries, the esteem and respect, which they enjoyed, were fully
established. They were every where considered as pure and holy in their
morals and conduct, eminently zealous for {177} religion, and highly
serviceable to the public. Their enemies, at all times, were either open
separatists from the catholic church, or secret enemies of it, who formed
parties for its destruction; or they were rivals, who vied with them in
some branches of the public administration of religion. From these sources
proceeded, at different times, that undigested mass of criminations,
unsubstantiated by proof, which are so inconsistently collected in the new
conspiracy against the Jesuits. It is evidently folly to imagine, that a
large body of men, connected with the public by a thousand links,
surrounded by jealous enemies, could possibly be a band of unprincipled
knaves, impostors, and miscreants. The universal favour of the bulk of so
many polished nations forbids, at once, such an idea. Popes, kings,
prelates, magistrates, everywhere protected and employed them. Bishops and
their clergy everywhere regarded them as their most useful auxiliaries in
the sacred ministry, because they professedly exercised every duty of it,
except that of _governing_ the church; {178} and this they renounced by
vow. The people, in all towns, even in villages, felt their gratuitous
services. A hundred years ago, if the public voice had been individually
collected in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, and Poland,
undoubtedly, they would rather have parted with any other, perhaps with
most other religious bodies, than with the society of Jesuits alone. A
hundred years ago, all the continental sovereigns in Europe would have
concurred in the same sentiment. With them they advised in all concerns of
religion; to them they listened as preachers; to them they intrusted the
instruction of their children, their own consciences, their souls. In those
days, not only kings, but ministers of kings, and the great bulk of their
nobles and people, believed in religion. They were sons of men, who had
fought hard battles in France and Germany, in defence of catholic unity,
against confederate sects, who had conspired to overturn it. Voltaire had
not yet appeared among them. Religion was not yet presented to them as an
object of ridicule. They {179} deemed of religion with reverence and awe,
and they believed it to be the firmest support of the state and of the
throne. They venerated its ministers, and among them the Jesuits, because
they knew, that their institute was well calculated to form its followers
to the active service of the altars, which they respected.
An idea of the institute of the Jesuits cannot be formed without consulting
the original code; and the first inspection of it shows the author to have
been a man of profound thinking, and eminently animated with the spirit of
religious zeal. _Ad majorem Dei gloriam_ was the motto of Ignatius of
Loyola, the main principle of all his conduct. He conceived, that a body of
men, associated to promote God's greater glory, must profess to imitate,
not one or two, but, universally, all the astonishing virtues of the
Redeemer; and, in planning his institute, he compressed them all into one
ruling motion of _zeal_, which, in his ideas, was the purest emanation of
charity, the summit of {180} Christian perfection. He everywhere employs
his first principle, as the universal bond, or link, that must unite his
society with God, and with their neighbours; and every prescription of his
institute is a direct consequence of it. _The greater glory of God_ is the
first object that occurs on opening the institute. It is the first thing,
on which every candidate is questioned; and, if he be accepted, the first
thing to which he is applied. This alone decides upon the admission and
dismission of subjects; this regulates their advancement in virtue and
letters, the preservation of their health, the improvement of their
talents, the distribution and allotment of their employments. Masters must
teach, and students must learn, only to advance the greater glory of God:
this is the rule of superiors, who command; the motive of subjects, who
obey: this alone is considered in the establishment of domestic discipline,
in the formation of laws and rules: it is the bond, which connects all, the
spring, which moves all; every impulse given to the society must {181}
proceed from this; this alone must accelerate or slacken its progress; for
this alone it must be maintained; every person in it, every thing in it,
prayer and action, labour and rest, rules and exceptions, punishments and
rewards, favours and refusals; in a word, every thing in the institute of
Ignatius has one motive, one end, one common motto, _The greater glory of
God_; with this it commences, with this it ends.
Whatever may be the sentiments of persons, of different religious
persuasions, of this plan of sanctity, certain it is, that the idea of it
presents something noble; and, in the principles of the catholic church, it
embraces the height of sanctity. To men acting upon such a principle, no
virtue could ever be foreign, because every virtue in its turn might be
wanted to promote God's greater glory. The aim of Ignatius was, first, to
form them into perfect Christians; and hence he prescribes and requires, in
all his associates, the full practice of evangelical poverty, perfect
purity, and intire obedience to lawful {182} authority; and these virtues
must be sanctioned by vow. He requires, that all and each should emulate
the other great evangelical counsels, such as mortification of the senses,
refusal of dignities and honourable distinctions, perfect disinterestedness
in their several functions, &c. He conceived, that God's glory would be
procured by the practice of these exalted virtues; but, faithful to his
principle, he judged that God's _greater_ glory required the communication,
the diffusion of them among his neighbours. He earnestly wished to bring
all men to know and adore the Son of God; and, in forming his associates
for this ministry, he was not content to teach them to be saints, he would
make them apostles. To the other obligations, which he laid upon them, he
added the solemn vow of missions, binding them, whenever required, to carry
the name of God, in the primitive spirit, to the extremities of the globe.
It would be an extravagant exaggeration to assert, that all the followers
of Ignatius {183} emulated such high gifts: but it has been allowed, in
general, by the best judges in the catholic church, and, in great measure,
by persons of other communions, that a large portion of the founder's
original spirit was infused into the society, which he formed; and that
Jesuits, cultivated by the mode of government and rules of life which he
established, achieved feats in every country, which religion must revere,
and sound policy commend. Their institute does not stop short of any
perfection, which the author of it thought attainable by human weakness. He
prescribes in it a variety of means, which his followers must employ, to
yield service to all, who surround them; and, though all could not be
performed by each, he strongly confided, that his order would never be
destitute of men qualified to execute every thing that he prescribed. Some
things are exacted of all and each, others are to be suited to the
different talents of the men employed; and the common education, which he
gives to all, qualifies each to succeed in his respective department. Every
{184} person, conversant in the affairs of the catholic church, will allow,
that, by the constant attention of the superiors, not any means of helping
the public, which the founder had prescribed, was neglected by the body of
Jesuits; and the general utility resulting from all this was precisely the
thing, that distinguished this body in the catholic church, and won for it
the protection of popes and bishops, the countenance of kings and princes,
the respect and esteem of nations.
As St. Ignatius, in his pursuit of absolute perfection, thought no virtue
foreign to his institute, so he judged no service, which churchmen could
yield to the public, foreign to his society. Without pretending to
enumerate the various duties and occupations, which he recommends to its
members, I select only a few, upon which he enters into more detailed
instructions, and to which he specially calls the attention of all
superiors, the zeal of all their subjects. They are, good example; prayer;
works of {185} charity to the poor, the imprisoned, the diseased; the
writing of books of piety and religious instruction; the use of the
sacrament of penance; preaching; pious congregations; spiritual retreats;
national and foreign missions; and education of youth in public and
gratuitous schools. In the catholic scheme of religion, each of these
things is deemed important; and the united voice of all, who knew Jesuits,
gives them the full credit of having, during their existence in a body,
cultivated, with success, each of these several branches. Their preachers
were heard and admired in every country; their tribunals of penance were
crouded; the sick and dying were always secure of their attendance, when
demanded; their books of devotion were everywhere read with confidence; the
good example, resulting from the purity of their morals, secured them, even
in the last fatal persecution, from inculpation, it disabled the malice of
calumny. In the impossibility of criminating living Jesuits, their worst
enemies could only revile the dead. Hospitals, workhouses, and lazarets,
were the constant scenes {186} of their zeal; their attendance on them was
reckoned an appropriate duty of their society. During the sixteenth and
seventeenth centuries, when the plague successively ravaged every country
in Europe, many hundreds of Jesuits are recorded to have lost their lives
in the service of the infected. Several perished, in the same exercise of
charity, in the last century, at Marseilles and Messina; and, during the
late retreat of the French army from Moscow, not less than ten Jesuits died
of fatigue and sickness, contracted in the hospitals crouded with those
French prisoners, who, a little before, had ejected them from their
principal college, at Polosk, after having plundered it of every valuable.
It would be tedious to insist upon every point; but something I must say on
the articles of missions and public schools, the two principal scenes of
their zeal.
With respect to missions, the Jesuits might truly apply to themselves the
verse,
Quae regio in terris nostri non plena laboris?
AEN. lib. i.
{187} Their perseverance in this field of zeal was universally admired; it
secured success during more than two centuries; and the latest missionary
expeditions of their society proved, that the original spirit was not
decayed. Whoever had caught it from the institute of Ignatius was a scholar
without pride; a man disengaged from his own conveniences; indifferent to
his employment, to country, to climate; submissive to guidance; capable of
living alone, and of edifying in public; happy in solitude, content in
tumult; never misplaced. In a word, great purity of manners, cultivated
minds, knowledge without pretensions, close study without recompence,
obedience without reasoning though not without reason, love of labour,
willingness to suffer, and, finally, fervor of zeal; such were the
qualifications, which Ignatius's discernment directed his successors in
government to seek, to select, or to form; and it is an acknowledged truth,
that, at every period of the society, they always found men of this
description to lead out their sacred expeditions to the four quarters of
{188} the world. These men planted Christian faith in the extremities of
the East, in Japan, in the Molucca islands; they announced it in China, in
the hither and further India, in Ethiopia and Caffraria, &c. Others, in the
opposite hemisphere, appeared on the snowy wastes of North America; and,
presently, Hurons were civilized, Canada ceased to be peopled only by
barbarians. Others, almost in our own days, nothing degenerate, succeeded
to humanize new hard-featured tribes, even to assemble them in Christian
churches, in the ungrateful soil of California, to which angry Nature seems
to have denied almost every necessary for the subsistence of the human
species. They were but a detachment from the body of their brethren, who,
at the same time, were advancing, with rapid progress, through Cinaloa,
among the unknown hordes of savages, who rove through the immense tracts to
the north of Mexico, which have not yet been trodden by the steps of any
evangelical herald. Others, again, in greater numbers, from the school of
Ignatius, with the most inflexible {189} perseverance, amidst every species
of opposition, continued to gather new nations into the church, to form new
colonies of civilized cannibals, for the kings of Spain and Portugal, in
the horrid wilds of Brazil, Maragnon, and Paraguay. Here truly flowed the
milk and honey of religion and human happiness. Here was realized more than
philosophy had dared to hope, more than Plato, in his republic, or the
author of Utopia, had ever ventured to imagine. Here was given the
demonstration, from experience, that pure religion, steadily practised, is
the only source of human happiness. The new settlements, called
_Reductions_, of Brazil and Paraguay, were real fruits of the zeal of the
Jesuits. Solipsian empires, and gold mines to enrich the society, existed
only in libels[65].
{190}
The Jesuits were advancing, with gigantic strides, to the very centre of
South America, they were actually civilizing the Abiponian barbarians, when
their glorious course was interrupted by the wretched policy of Lisbon and
Madrid. The missionaries of South America were all seized like felons, and
shipped off, as so many convicts, to the ports of old Spain, to be still
farther transported to Corsica, and, finally, to the coasts of the pope's
states. One of these venerable men, Martin Dobrizhoffer, who had spent
eighteen years among the South American tribes, has given, in his _Historia
de Abiponibus_, the best account, that exists, of the field of his arduous
mission. His work is here mentioned, because it is not unknown in England,
and his testimony[66] proves the persuasion of the best men at Buenos
Ayres, in 1767, when the Jesuits were dismissed, that, if they had been at
all times properly supported, by the courts of Lisbon and Madrid,
especially {191} against the self interested European settlers, not a
barbarian, not an infidel, would then have been left in the whole extent of
South America. "This," says the author, "was boldly advanced from the
pulpit at Buenos Ares, in the presence of the royal governor, and of a
thronged auditory, and it was proved with a strength of argument, that
subdued all doubt, and wrought universal conviction." The impression must
have been strengthened by the subsequent dissolution of all the
_Reductions_, in consequence of the inability of the royal officers to
substitute other missionaries to those, whom they had ejected[67].
Different was the providence of the superiors {192} in the old society, to
perpetuate the race and regular succession of those wonderful men. If they
had sent out from Europe subjects already formed to every virtue and every
science, their virtues and their learning would have been almost useless,
without the knowledge and practical use of the barbarous idioms of the
Indian tribes. Every young Jesuit in Europe was first trained, during two
full years of noviciate, to the exact practice of religious virtues. He was
next applied, during five years, still in strict domestic discipline, to
the several studies of poetry, rhetoric, logic, physics, metaphysics,
natural history, and mathematics. Seven years of preparation qualified
these proficients to commence schoolmasters, during five or six succeeding
years, in the several colleges of their respective provinces. It was
generally at this {193} period of their religious career, that several
young Jesuits, instead of being employed to teach schools, were detached
from the several European provinces, to the Asiatic colleges of Goa, or
Macao, or to the American colleges of Mexico, Buenos Ayres, or Cordova in
Tucumaw, where, in expectation of priesthood, they made a close study of
the barbarous languages, which they were afterwards to speak in their
missions. These were usually selected from the number of those, who had
spontaneously solicited such a destination; and the number of these pious
volunteers being always considerable, the succession of missionaries in the
society of Jesuits could never fail. But it is time to say something of
their schools.
The education of youth in schools is one of the prominent features of the
Jesuits' institute. Their founder saw, that the disorders of the world,
which he wished to correct, spring chiefly from neglect of education. He
perceived, that the fruits of the other spiritual functions of {194} his
society would be only temporary, unless he could perpetuate them through
every rising generation, as it came forward in succession. Every professed
Jesuit was bound by a special vow, to attend to the instruction of youth;
and this duty was the peculiar function, the first important mission, of
the younger members, who were preparing themselves for profession. Even the
two years of noviciate mainly contributed to the same purpose. They were
not lost to the sciences, since novices were carefully taught the science
upon which they all depend. The religious exercises of that first period
tended to give them that steadiness of character and virtue, without which
no good is achieved in schools. They then acquired a fondness for
retirement, a love of regularity, a habit of labour, a disgust of
dissipation, a custom of serious reflection, docility to advice, a
sentiment of honour and self-respect, with a fixed love of virtue; every
thing requisite to support and advance the cultivation of letters and of
science in future years. It has been already observed, {195} that the
serious studies, which filled five years after the noviciate, were
calculated, in conjunction with strict religious discipline, to form them
for the serious business of conducting a school of boys during the five or
six years, which were to succeed: and, in the discharge of this duty, they
were bound to know and to follow, under the direction of a prefect of
studies in every college, the excellent documents prescribed in the
institute for masters.
It is not possible in a short compass to enumerate these instructions; but
the mention of a few may suffice to prove, that nothing was forgotten. The
object of Ignatius, in charging his society with the management of boys and
youths, as it is announced in various parts of the institute, was to form
and perfect their will, their conscience, their morals, their manners,
their memory, imagination, and reason. Docility is the first virtue
required in a child: and, to subdue stiff tempers, the remedies prescribed
in the Jesuits' institute are, impartiality in the {196} master, honourable
distinctions, and mortifying humiliations, applied with judgment and
discretion: then, steady attention to maintain the established discipline
and economy of the school, which is a constant, and therefore a powerful
check upon the unruly. To secure it, says the text, hope of reward and fear
of disgrace are more powerful than blows; and, if the latter become
unavoidable, punishment must never be inflicted with that precipitation,
which gives to justice an air of violence. In inquiring into trespasses,
too nice and minute investigation must be avoided, because it inspires
mistrust. The art of dissembling small faults is often a safe means to
prevent great ones. Gentle means must always be first employed; and, if
ever fear and repentance must be impressed, the hand of some indifferent
person must be called into action; the hand of the master must be used only
to impress gratitude and respect. If his hand is never to be the instrument
of pain, his voice must never be the organ of invective. He must employ
{197} instruction, exhortation, friendly reproach, but never contumelious
language, haughtiness, and affronts: he must never utter words to boys,
which would degrade them in the eyes of their companions, or demean them in
their own. In the distribution of rewards, no distinction must be known,
but that of merit. The very suspicion of partiality to character, fortune,
or rank, would frustrate the effect of the rewards bestowed, and provoke
indocility, jealousy, and disgust, in those who received none. Nothing so
quickly overturns authority, and withers the fruit of zealous labours, even
in virtuous masters, as the appearance of undue favour. The masters's equal
attention is due to all; he must interest himself equally for the progress
of all; he must never check the activity of any by indifference, much less
irritate their self-love by contempt.
It were easy to multiply, from the institute, instructions prescribed to
masters, to insure success in this first part of education, the {198}
bridling of the rebel will of youth; but Ignatius knew, that these things
would never be enforced by young masters, who had not learned the art of
bridling their own. Discipline might bind boys to outward respect, but only
religion and virtue can make them love the yoke; and no yoke is ever
carried with perseverance unless it be borne with pleasure. Religion is the
most engaging and most powerful restraint upon rising and growing passions;
and to imprint it deeply in the heart was the main business of the Jesuit
schools. The rest was accessory and subordinate. The principles of religion
were there instilled, while the elements of learning were unfolded. Maxims
of the Gospel were taught together with profane truths; the pride of
science was tempered by the modesty of piety; the master's labour was
directed, as much to form the conscience, as to improve the memory, and
regulate the imagination of his disciples. The institute directed him to
instil a profound respect for God; to begin and end his lessons by prayer;
to cherish the {199} piety of the devout; to avail himself of it as a means
to attract the thoughtless to imitation; and, by a special rule, he was
charged to instruct his scholars in all duties of religion by weekly
catechisms, carefully adapted to their capacity. The ecclesiastical
historian, Fleury, remarks, in the preface to his historical catechism,
that, if the youth of his age was incomparably better instructed than the
youth of past ages, the obligation was owing principally to the catechisms
of the Jesuits' school. He had heard them during the six years of his
education in Clermont college.
Ignatius places herein the capital point of education: and he well knew,
that where the grand motives of religion are not employed, an assembly of
men will commonly be a collection of vice, especially in unexperienced
youth, when growing passions always seek communication, in order to
authorise themselves by example. To this point, then, he directs the rules
of his subjects employe
Showing first 200,000 characters. Full text: gutenberg.org/ebooks/33836