_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.