1560-1600.
PROCEEDINGS OF THE JESUITS IN THE DIFFERENT COUNTRIES OF EUROPE.
ENGLAND.
Many have pronounced it impossible to write an adequate history of the
Jesuits, because, being more or less connected with the history of the
world, it is no easy matter to pass from one event, and from one country,
to another, and yet follow the chronological order, that the reader may
have a clear and consecutive narrative. To obviate this difficulty as far
as possible, we have, in the preceding chapter, which embraces a period
of twenty-five years, related only the facts connected with the internal
history of the order; we shall now proceed to those which during nearly
the same space of time more or less exercised an influence upon the
history of the different countries in Europe.
Let us begin with England. After the first expedition of Brouet and
Salmeron in 1541, which we have already noticed, Great Britain was no
longer troubled with Jesuitical missions till the “good Queen Mary had
expired, to the inestimable damage of the Catholic religion.”[129] In
1550, however, the Pope despatched to Ireland the Irish Jesuit, Davis
Wolfe, and after three years more, a bishop, accompanied with other two
Jesuits; “while,” as Sacchini says, “Father Chimage, an Englishman,
returned home, for the purpose of having his health restored by his own
native air.”[130] These satellites of the Pope entered the country under
fictitious names, and as stealthily as nocturnal robbers, mendacious in
every word they uttered, and exciting the people to rebellion against the
“impious” queen. However, the vigilance of Elizabeth’s police prevented
them for the time being from doing any material injury. Wolfe, guilty of
a thousand immoralities, was dismissed the Society, and the others were
obliged to return to Rome.
About this time (1562), Father Gandon was sent into Scotland to exhort
and encourage Queen Mary to be faithful to her religion. This was,
perhaps, the avowed motive, but, doubtless, he had received similar
instructions to those given by Paul III. to Brouet and Salmeron. Mary
admitted him by a postern door into her palace, and had three secret
conferences with him; but his steps were traced, he was pursued, and a
price set upon his head. The Jesuit, who, it seems, had no taste for
martyrdom, left Scotland, but not before he had done some mischief. He
departed, along with several young noblemen, whom he had seduced, and
who accompanied him to be educated in Flanders. “They were hostages
to the Church, and were afterwards to return home, carrying thither
the faith with them.”[131] About the same period, William Allen, “to
perpetuate,” as Butler says, “the Catholic ministry in England,” resolved
upon establishing colleges abroad, in which English priests should be
educated, preparatory to exercising their calling at home. His exertions
were crowned with success. A college, which he consigned into the hands
of the Jesuits, was established in Douay in 1568, and Pope Gregory XIII.
endowed it with £1500 yearly. When the Jesuits were expelled from
Douay, and their college sacked by the people, the Cardinal of Lorraine
called them to Rheims. This happened in 1576. The same Pope Gregory
established another college in Rome for the education of English youth,
and for the purpose of imbuing their minds with hatred to their sovereign
and country. The Jesuits had the superintendence of this also. Hence
proceeded those priests and Jesuits, who, with brands of discord in their
hands, departed to set their country on fire. Many Jesuits were sent to
Great Britain between the years 1562 and 1580, and they all received
the same instructions, and acted in the same manner. Elizabeth, who at
the beginning of her reign had exercised a spirit of toleration towards
her Catholic subjects, was now greatly incensed against them, driven,
as she was, to extremities by the continual torrent of abuse which was
poured upon her head by the sectarians of Rome. The holy Pius V., on
the 5th of February 1570, fulminated a bull of excommunication against
“Elizabeth, the so-called queen of England, who, after having usurped the
throne, has dared to assume the title of supreme chief of the Church,
and, moreover” ... [here the bull enumerates all Elizabeth’s crimes].
“We, therefore,” the bull continues, “by the authority which is given to
us, declare that the aforesaid Elizabeth, and all her adherents, have
incurred excommunication; that she has forfeited her pretended right to
the crown of England; and we deprive her of it, and of all other rights,
domains, privileges, and dignities. We absolve the Lords and the Commons
of the realm, and all others her subjects, from the oath of allegiance
which they may have tendered to her, prohibiting them from obeying her
commands, ordinances, and proclamations, under the penalty of being
excommunicated in like manner.”[132]
The abuses poured upon her by priests and Jesuits were most revolting
and insulting. Without referring to ancient writers, we shall quote a
passage from Crétineau, a writer of the present civilised and tolerant
age, that our readers may have an idea of what must have been the
scurrility of those times of fanaticism and intestine commotions. “The
Holy See,” says the French historian, “had frequently cursed the heiress
and daughter of Henry VIII. The Catholics, on the other hand, having
penetrated, along with all England, into her licentious and voluptuous
private life, refused to salute the mistress of Leicester with the name
of maiden queen, to worship her caprices, or to applaud her hypocritical
passions.”[133]
Nor were the Roman Catholics merely contented with attacking Elizabeth
by words—their deeds were yet more criminal. Long before this, Allen
solicited the General of the Jesuits to establish a house in England.
But it seems that the General and the Pope were waiting their own time,
and that they did not resolve till the year 1579 to grace Great Britain
with a permanent Jesuitical establishment. When this resolution was
made known, the most distinguished members of the Society implored, on
their knees (as it is reported), to be sent to England to brave the
persecutions of Elizabeth; Mercurianus told them, however, that English
Jesuits should be preferred for this mission. In consequence of this
declaration, Fathers Campion and Parson were chosen to head the mission,
which was composed of thirteen members.[134] It arrived at the sea-coast
of France, about the month of June 1580. Campion and Parson were both
fellows of Oxford University, and not the least among its professors and
tutors. It seems that both of them were Catholics at heart, though they
pretended to be Protestants. The Jesuits affirm that Parson was dismissed
the University because of his Catholic sentiments, while the other party
assigns his immoral conduct as the reason. Both took the oath; both, we
are assured, repented it all their lives. Both left the university, and
after various vicissitudes, and the necessary probation, were received
among the sons of Loyola. As we may believe, Cecil’s police knew almost
all the movements of these self-invited visitors. Their intended landing
in England was announced to all the authorities, their persons were
carefully described, and orders were given for arresting them the moment
they put foot on shore. But all was to no purpose. The Jesuits eluded
every vigilance, and Father Parson, upon arriving at Dover, played to
the officer who had the charge of examining the passengers, a trick that
would shame any modern Robert Macaire. He gave out that he was a captain
returning from Flanders; and being dressed suitably to the character
assumed, so well did he perform his part, that the inspecting officer
received him with every species of civility and courtesy, shook hands
with him, and promised, moreover, to shew every attention to one of the
captain’s merchant friends, who, as that impostor intimated, was expected
every day from the Continent, and who proved to be no other than Father
Campion. When the latter arrived in London, Parson was on the banks of
the Thames to receive him, and saluted and cheered him with the air of
one meeting a long absent friend, so that no one could have suspected
that all was an artifice and a trick.[135]
The Jesuits, once in England, lost no time in commencing operations.
A meeting of all the missionaries and secular priests was summoned.
Parson presided. He was too cunning to declare publicly the end of their
mission, as he did not wish to frighten the timid with the announcement
of some dangerous enterprise. He disclaimed all political objects, and
said that he only aimed at the conversion of England in co-operation with
the secular priests; and swore that this was his only intention.[136]
But then appealing to a decree of the Council of Trent, he forbade
the Catholics to attend divine service in Protestant churches, and
recommended strict nonconformity. In the company of the more faithful, he
inveighed most bitterly against the queen, and pointed out with what ease
she might be dethroned, by the assistance of the King of Spain and the
Pope. Such exhortations as this caused a great ferment among the Roman
Catholics.
“Swarms of Jesuits and Papists (from the seminaries of Rome and Rheims),
impelled by religious enthusiasm, sedulously cultivated for that very
purpose, and desirous of returning to their own country, were constantly
pouring into the kingdom.”[137] Parson, who was the Provincial, guided
all their movements, and himself went from place to place to excite the
worst passions of man’s nature in the breasts of those who sought him,
as their spiritual father, to confer peace and consolation. A great stir
soon became visible among the Roman Catholics. People talked of nothing
else than conspiracy and revolt. Sinister rumours were afloat, and
acquired new strength from day to day, as is always the case in times
of excitement, when some strange idea always pervades the minds of the
multitude. It was now the general belief throughout England that every
Roman Catholic was a traitor, and at the bidding of the priests was
ready to become an assassin. A general massacre of the Protestants by
the Papists, assisted by the invasion of a foreign power, was talked of
as a matter of more than probable occurrence. Above all, Elizabeth—the
beloved queen—the idol of the people—was in danger every moment of being
murdered. Books were daily printed denouncing more or less particularly
their abominable machinations. These gave consistency to the popular
belief. This belief extended from the lowest to the highest ranks of
society, and put the nation into an indescribable state of excitement.
The government, satisfied that the Jesuits were the cause of all these
troubles, and with the view of quieting the popular commotions, issued
a proclamation, which may have been considered just in those days, but
which we, who live in a more tolerant age, must unconditionally condemn.
Among its other enactments were the following:—“That whosoever had any
children, wards, kinsmen, or other relations in parts beyond the seas,
should after ten days give in their names to the ordinary, and within
four months call them home again, and when they had returned, should
forthwith give notice of the same to the said ordinary. That they should
not, directly or indirectly, supply such as refused to return with any
money. That no man should entertain in his house or harbour any priests
sent forth from the aforesaid seminaries, or Jesuits, or cherish and
relieve them. And that whosoever did to the contrary, should be accounted
a favourer of rebels and seditious persons, and be proceeded against
according to the laws of the land.”[138]
The proclamation was boldly answered by pamphlets from each of the
Jesuits. Parson’s was full of virulence towards the Protestants, and
Campion’s, although written in a more moderate tone, was no less
offensive. This last was entitled _Ten Reasons_. It was a defence of the
Church of Rome and its supremacy, and made no little noise.[139] In both
of these writings, it was protested that the Jesuits were in England
solely for the purpose of exercising their holy ministry, and not for any
political end whatever; that, on the contrary, they had come to modify
the Bull of Pius V. Crétineau says, that “Parson and Campion would not
leave Rome until they obtained from the Holy See this concession (the
modification of the Bull), which would greatly facilitate their apostolic
mission; even the Protestants themselves mention this in their annals as
a fact.”[140] And in a note he cites “Camden.” We shall quote for him the
passage of the English annalist.
“Robert Parson and Edmund Campion were authorised by Gregory XIII.
in these words:—An explication of the bull issued by Pius V. against
Elizabeth and her adherents is sought for from our supreme lord, since
the Catholics desire that it be thus understood, that it should always
bind her and the heretics, but by no means the Catholics, as matters now
stand, but only when the execution of the same bull be publicly ordered.
The supreme Pontiff granted the aforesaid grace to Father Robert Parson
and Edmund Campion when about to set out to England, on the 13th April
1580, in the presence of Father Oliver Manara assistant.”[141]
We might perhaps say that this pretended concession is rather an
aggravation of the bull than anything else; but we shall be generous, and
give it the best interpretation possible. But then, if we prove that all
this was a wily cunning contrivance, that the Jesuits might have greater
chance of success in their treacherous projects, their crime will be
still more execrable. Let us examine. The facts, it is true, are far from
us, and the actors have long ago departed to their accounts: True; but
then the deductions of logic from well-authenticated facts still remain
to us, and are equally convincing. The Jesuits assert that the Pope, out
of leniency and benignancy towards England and its queen, had ordered
them not to force upon the Roman Catholic believers the clause of his
predecessor’s bull which forbade them, under pain of excommunication, to
consider Elizabeth as their legitimate sovereign. Well, if the rest of
the Pope’s conduct leads us to believe in the sincerity of this mandate,
we shall absolve them of every crime, and say that the Jesuits proceeded
to England with the best intentions, and were martyrs to their faith.
But who was this pacific and tolerant Pope? It was Gregory XIII.; that
same Gregory who, at the news of Saint Bartholomew’s infernal feast, went
in procession to the French Church in Rome, offered up thanksgivings
to the Almighty for the blood of 50,000 of His creatures barbarously
butchered, and had medals struck to commemorate this glorious event! It
was this same Gregory who had on the previous year supplied the ruffian
Stukely with money, arms, and troops for the invasion of England, whilst
the Catholics in the interior were ordered to rise in rebellion in his
favour.[142] It was this identical Gregory who at the same time sent
into Ireland the famous Dr. Sanders, as the Pope’s legate, with a bull
declaring the invasion a regular crusade with all its privileges! It was
that same Gregory who, says Ranke, “excited and encouraged all those
insurrections which Elizabeth had to contend with in Ireland.”[143] All
these facts, proving Gregory’s inexorable hatred towards the Protestants,
and his determined desire to dethrone Elizabeth, happened shortly before
and after the mission of the Jesuits. And yet it is pretended that this
same man forbade the Jesuits from mixing in political affairs, and that,
on the contrary, he charged them to preach obedience to the queen!
We believe that few will give the Jesuits credit on that score, but
rather will be satisfied they were sent for the purpose of stirring up a
rebellion, if possible to find an assassin, and that the injunction was
nothing else than a _ruse_—an act of duplicity wherewith the better to
succeed in their treasonable designs.
The government was, however, highly incensed at their audacity, and
attached the utmost importance to their capture. Another proclamation was
issued, forbidding any one to harbour, protect, or assist the Jesuits
to escape, and that he who did so would be considered guilty of high
treason. This produced an effect quite contrary to what was intended.
Hundreds of persons who, before the proclamation, shewed no liking for
the Jesuits, now risked their fortunes, their lives, to protect them. So
interesting does persecution render a man—so generous are the instincts
of the people. All the activity, all the vigilance of the most energetic
and vigilant of governments was for thirteen months baffled by the
dexterity and resources of the Jesuits. The history of their escapes,
and the daring methods in which they executed them, is both curious and
amusing. Space will not permit us to indulge in the recital of more
than one of those marvellous escapes. One evening the house in which
Parson had sought a retreat was suddenly surrounded by a band who were
in pursuit of him. Resistance or concealment was impossible. Parson
at once determined on what he would do. He went to the door, opened
it, and calmly asked what they wanted. “The Jesuit,” was the reply.
“Walk in,” said he, “and search for him quietly;” and as they entered,
he went out, and made his escape.[144] The escapes of Campion were no
less wonderful. He himself wrote, “My dresses are most numerous, my
fashions are various, and as for names, I have an abundance.”[145] The
government, enraged at being so often baffled, had recourse, we are sorry
to say, to persecution. Thousands of citizens were thrown into prison
for nonconformity, or on mere suspicion. Domiciliary visits frequently
disturbed even the inoffensive and peaceful Papists, whilst the Jesuit
authors of all these disturbances and miseries laughed at the abortive
attempts of their enemies to capture them. At last, in July 1581, Elliot,
a Papist, betrayed Campion. He was arrested along with two other priests,
in a secret closet in a wall of the castle of Yates. They mounted him on
the largest horse that could be got, tied his legs under it, pinioned
his hands behind his back, and fixed a placard on his hat with this
inscription, in great capitals, “Campion, the seditious Jesuit.” He
was brought to London, surrounded by a great multitude, vociferating
imprecations and curses upon his head. The shouts of jubilee among the
Protestants throughout England were deafening, and many a sincere person
rejoiced at it, as if by this capture the kingdom was rescued from
imminent danger and certain destruction.
The contradiction which exists between the Protestant and Catholic
writers, regarding the treatment, trial, and execution of the Jesuits,
renders it almost impossible for us to arrive at the exact truth. The
one party calls them innocent martyrs, the other infernal traitors. The
one complains that they were most unmercifully treated, the other, that
they had too much lenity shewn them. It is, however, an incontestible
fact that they were put to the torture, and Crétineau is right when he
exclaims against the Protestants, who, while professing to abhor the
Papal Inquisition so much, now adopted all its barbarous proceedings.
It may be also true, that a jury sitting now at Westminster would
not find sufficient material from which to condemn them. But we must
remind the Catholics, that to judge of these events with impartiality,
we must transport ourselves to those times, when Ireland was in an
almost continual state of rebellion; when England was daily menaced
with invasion; when the Roman Catholics of all Europe spoke of another
Saint Bartholomew; when torrents of imprecations were poured out against
Elizabeth, her ministers, and all her Protestant subjects. We must go
back to those times when the Jesuits persuaded the Roman Catholics that
it was a mortal sin for them to acknowledge Elizabeth’s right to the
throne; to those times in which the Jesuitical doctrine, that it was
lawful, nay meritorious, to kill an excommunicated king, had already
been proclaimed; finally, to those times when the contest had come to
this,—“Whether England should be Protestant under the sway of Elizabeth,
or Catholic under Mary of Scotland, or Philip of Spain.” That the
Jesuits and the Pope caused all this agitation, there can be no doubt
whatever. Hume, quoting a passage from Camden, and Walsingham’s letter
in Burnet, appears to me to assign the most plausible reason for it in
the following words:—“And though the exercise of every religion but the
established one was prohibited by the statute, the violation of this law,
by saying mass, and receiving the sacrament in private houses, was, in
many instances, connived at; while, on the other hand, the Catholics,
at the beginning of her reign, shewed little reluctance against going
to church, or frequenting the ordinary duties of public worship. The
Pope, sensible that this practice would by degrees reconcile all his
partisans to the Reformed religion, hastened the publication of the bull,
which excommunicated the queen, and freed her subjects from their oath
of allegiance; and great pains were taken by the emissaries of Rome to
render the breach between the two religions as wide as possible, and to
make the frequenting of Protestant churches appear highly criminal in the
Catholics. These practices, with the rebellion which ensued, increased
the vigilance and severity of the government; but the Romanists, if
their condition were compared with that of the nonconformists in other
countries, and with their own maxims where they domineered, could not
justly complain of violence or persecution.”[146]
The truth of this assertion is rendered still more evident by a petition
of the English Catholic priests themselves, addressed to the Pope,
in which they say, “That those fathers (the Jesuits) were the sole
authors of all the troubles which agitated the English Church; that,
previous to the Jesuits’ COMING TO ENGLAND, NO CATHOLIC HAD BEEN ACCUSED
OF HIGH TREASON; that they no sooner made their appearance in Great
Britain, than the aspect of things began to undergo a change; that their
political ambition was manifest; and that they had set a price on the
crown, and put the kingdom to auction.”[147] These were the times and
the circumstances in which, on the 20th of November 1581, Campion and
fifteen other priests were brought to trial at Westminster. They were all
condemned, and three Jesuits, Campion, Sherwin, and Briant, were publicly
executed. Crétineau and the other Jesuit historians give them the name of
martyrs. Hume, on the contrary, following the historians of the epoch,
says, that “Campion was detected in treasonable practices, and being put
to the rack, confessed his guilt, and was publicly executed.”[148] It
is repeatedly affirmed in the _Justitia Britannica_, and partly proved,
that they were convicted of treason and conspiracy against the life of
the queen. One strong proof against Campion, was the production of a
letter which he had found means to forward to Father Pond, another Jesuit
prisoner in the Tower, and in which he writes:—“I feel in myself courage
enough, and I hope I shall have the strength, not to let drop from my
mouth one single word which may be prejudicial to the Church of God,
no matter what may be the torments.”[149] But we repeat, even though
proofs had been deficient for a strictly legal condemnation, there is,
nevertheless, a strong moral certitude of their having been conspirators,
purposely sent into England to cause a revolt, and, if possible, to
procure the assassination of the queen. Thus, whatever may be the
objection raised against the legality of the form, no one will deny the
substantial justice by which they were punished.
After the capture of Campion, Parson, like a prudent general, not wishing
to risk his own person, on which so much depended, left England for
France, where, feeling himself secure, he gave vent to his hatred, poured
out curses and maledictions on the whole English nation, and set on foot
new plots and new conspiracies. In conjunction with Dr Allen, the Guises,
and the Bishop of Glasgow (Mary’s Resident at the court of France), he
sent over to Scotland Father Creighton, for the purpose of converting
James VI. to Romanism, and of exciting him to join the Pope and the King
of Spain in war against England, promising him money and all sorts of
favours from both these monarchs. Creighton frequently crossed over from
France to Scotland to effect this league; and once, when on his way, the
vessel in which he was conveyed being seized, he tore some papers, with
the design of throwing them into the sea, but the wind blowing them back
upon the deck, the pieces were arranged together, and brought to light
some dangerous secrets.[150]
The famous William Parry was detected about the same time. This man, who
had received the queen’s pardon for a crime deserving capital punishment,
went to travel. He repaired to Venice, where he was persuaded by Father
Palmio, the Provincial of the Jesuits in that locality, that he could not
do a more meritorious action than kill his sovereign and benefactress.
Campeggio, the Pope’s nuncio, approved of this; and Ragazzoni, the Pope’s
legate in Paris, to confirm him in this criminal enterprise, promised
him from the Holy See, not only absolution, but also the Pope’s paternal
benediction, and a plenary indulgence for all his sins. Morgan, a
Catholic gentleman residing in Paris, gave him additional encouragement.
Parry returned to England, where, after some delay, he disclosed his
design to Nevil, who resolved to have a share in the merit of its
execution. Both determined to sacrifice their lives in the fulfilment
of a duty which they were taught was agreeable to the will of God, and
for the interests of the true religion. But while they were watching
for a fit opportunity to put this execrable parricide into execution,
the Earl of Westmoreland died in exile; and as Nevil was the next heir
to the family possessions, he, in the hope of being put into the family
estates and honours, betrayed the whole conspiracy. Parry was arrested,
and confessed his guilt both to the ministry and to the jury who tried
him. The letter of the Cardinal of Como, in which he announced to Parry
that the Holy Father sent him absolution, his blessing, and plenary
indulgence, was produced before the court, and put Parry’s declaration
beyond all doubt.[151] He was condemned, and received the punishment
due to his treason. Parry, among other revelations, said that he had
informed Father Creighton of his purpose; and as this Jesuit was in
prison at the time, he was examined concerning Parry. At first he denied
all acquaintance with him, but he subsequently wrote to Walsingham,
confessing that Parry had indeed declared to him his intention of taking
the queen’s life, and had also asked his opinion on the matter; that
he (Creighton) answered that it was not lawful to do so, _omnino non
liceret_; that, on being pressed by Parry, whether, to save the bodies
and souls of many, it was not lawful to take away a single life, he,
the Jesuit, answered, that even in this case one ought not to attempt
such a deed without, at least, _feeling an inspiration from above_.[152]
This answer, in my opinion, was more apt to inflame the fanaticism
of the man than to check him in his parricidal projects. And yet this
was all that Creighton could say in his own justification. Now it is
astonishing with what impudence Crétineau tries to pervert the truth of
this affair. Listen to his narrative. He pretends that Walsingham had
sent Parry to the Continent in order to test the fidelity of the Jesuits;
that he revealed to many of them his design to murder Elizabeth, and was
dissuaded by all from the committal of such an abominable crime; that,
being introduced by an English gentleman (Morgan, no doubt) to the Pope’s
legate, Ragazzoni, he, Parry, presented to him a petition, craving the
holy father’s blessing, and absolution of his sins; that, having returned
to England, he was introduced to the queen, to whom he related that the
Jesuits, and the partisans of Mary Stewart, had excited him to take away
her life; that he was not credited by the queen; that he had subsequently
fallen into indigence; that misery and despair had inspired him with the
thought of executing in reality the imaginary crime which he pretended
to have meditated with the Jesuits.[153] And to explain Cardinal Como’s
letter, he adds—“As to the Pope’s indulgences and absolution, no matter
how great these favours may appear to the eyes of the pious and the
faithful, _aux yeux de la pieté, et de la foi_, it must, nevertheless,
be confessed, that every one may obtain them without being obliged to
assassinate a heretic princess.”[154] Although the absurdity of these
justifications be already quite manifest, we shall suggest one or two
observations. What interest could Walsingham have had in sending Parry to
know the opinion of the Jesuits upon the projected murder of the queen?
These Jesuits were safe from the minister’s anger, since they were in
foreign countries. Parry did not set plots on foot which should involve
many persons, whose names it might have been useful to know; he did
not ask to be made privy to any secret, or to be sent back to England
directed to some Popish partisan to discover and betray him. No—he was
only sent for the pleasure of knowing what answer the Jesuits would give
to his question—“May I, or may I not, kill the queen?” But Walsingham was
not only a stupid, he was also an ungrateful, minister. He employed a
man in a most serious and delicate affair, he disclosed to that same man
dangerous and rather disgraceful secrets, and that man, immediately after
he had accomplished his mission, was driven to extremities for want of
food! Alas! Monsieur Crétineau, your attempted justification proves the
culpability of your Jesuits more forcibly than any other proof could.
A severe law was now passed by parliament against the Jesuits. The law
enacted that they should depart the kingdom within forty days; that
those who should remain beyond that time, or should afterwards return,
should be guilty of treason; that those who harboured or relieved them
should be guilty of felony; that those who were educated in seminaries,
if they did not return in six months after notice given, and did not
submit themselves to the queen, before a bishop, or two justices, should
be guilty of treason; and that, if any so submitting themselves, should
within ten years approach the court, or come within ten miles of it,
their submission should be void.[155]
Of fifty or sixty Jesuits, a part being frightened, left England of their
own accord, while the rest were discovered and sent away, but only to
become still more dangerous enemies. We beg to quote a passage from Hume
regarding the too famous conspiracy of Babington, which passage exactly
expresses our ideas upon the subject:—
“The English seminary at Rheims had wrought themselves up to a high
pitch of rage and animosity against the queen. The recent persecutions
from which they had escaped; the new rigours which they knew awaited
them in the course of their missions; the liberty which at present they
enjoyed, of declaiming against that princess; and the contagion of that
religious fury which everywhere surrounded them in France;—all these
causes had obliterated within them every maxim of common sense, and
every principle of morals or humanity. Intoxicated with admiration of
the Divine power and infallibility of the Pope, they revered his bull,
by which he excommunicated and deposed the queen; and some of them had
gone to that height of extravagance as to assert, that the performance
had been immediately dictated by the Holy Ghost. The assassination of
heretical sovereigns, and of that princess in particular, was represented
as the most meritorious of all enterprises; and they taught, that whoever
perished in such attempts, enjoyed without dispute the glorious and
never-fading crown of martyrdom. By such doctrines they instigated a man
of desperate courage, who had served some years in the low countries
under the Prince of Parma, to attempt the life of Elizabeth; and this
assassin having made a vow to persevere in his design, was sent over
to England, and recommended to the confidence of the more zealous
Catholics.”[156]
It would be too tedious to follow the Jesuits in all their machinations
against both the queen and the state, neither would it afford any
additional instruction. We shall pass in silence the efforts of Father
Garnet to raise a revolt when the Invincible Armada was approaching.
We shall not even quote a passage from Crétineau, where he confesses
without the least hesitation that Philip II. had sent a host of Jesuits
along with the Armada, while Father Solarez by his order went on a
pilgrimage to Jerusalem to implore Divine aid for its success. We shall
not further demonstrate, that if they were not the prime movers of
every plot, they were at least implicated less or more in them all. Nor
shall we detain our readers with details of the deeds they performed in
Scotland, where their influence depended in great part, as the Jesuits
assert, upon the state of friendship between James and Elizabeth. We
shall merely translate a single passage from their historian:—“After the
death of Mary Stuart,” says Crétineau, “James seemed disposed to break
up all intercourse with England; and, that this rupture might be the
better publicly attested, James not only granted to the Jesuits a free
access into his dominions, but also himself invited them to come.”[157]
We give this quotation as we find it, without being responsible for its
veracity; but it will be sufficient to prove that the Jesuits, even from
the confession of their own party, were the most perfidious and dangerous
enemies that England ever had to contend with. And as they were then, so
they are still. If they hated England and Queen Elizabeth in the 16th
century, they bear no less hate to England and Queen Victoria in the
19th. Let an opportunity present itself, and you shall see them again
heading the rebellion, and preaching murder as the most meritorious
of all actions. Nor do they remain inactive while waiting for the
opportunity. Their evil genius is constantly present and active. Many
are the parents whose last days are saddened with the thought that their
children have forsaken the green pastures and the untainted waters of
pure gospel truth, for the turbid waters of adulterous Babylon,—these
children, once the worshippers of God, now the idolaters of man, whom
some disguised son of Loyola, skilfully insinuating himself into their
young minds and unsuspecting hearts, has seduced from the right path.
These riots, that blood spilt at Stockport, Dublin, Belfast, and
elsewhere—the attempted beginning of a civil war—believe me, is due to
the Jesuits, some of whom, while in the confessional or in the midst of
private circles they speak with feigned devotion of the infallibility
and supremacy of their Church, always find means, at the same time, of
exciting, indirectly it may be, the ignorant and the bigoted against the
Protestants; while the hypocritical occupation of others in the public
streets will be to pour out torrents of bitter invectives against the
abominations of the Court of Rome, and stir up the worst passions of
the Protestants against their fellow-citizens the Papists! What, it may
naturally be asked, could prompt the latter to such infernal wickedness?
The accomplishment, I answer, of their mysterious designs, though this
should be at the cost of the blood of thousands of their unoffending
fellow-beings. Such demoniacal perfidy might well, to the honour of
mankind, be scarcely credited; but listen to what I am going to relate.
The fact is unfortunately too notorious to be contradicted, and will
go far to afford an insight into the character of the Jesuits. In our
last struggle, in that mortal combat which we, poor and inexperienced as
we were, fought single-handed against the Pope and all his supporters,
for civil and religious liberty, when Rome was besieged and the trumpet
sounded daily for battle, a man of prepossessing appearance, wearing a
beard and moustache, was seen going about from place to place, praising
the soldiers for their valour, encouraging the citizens not to desert
their walls, inflaming the minds of the youth with the glory of dying
for one’s country, and cursing the French, the Pope, and especially the
Jesuits. No one knew who he was, but many a one admired him, and gave
him credit for being an ardent patriot. One day, however, some of the
National Guards perceived a sort of telegraph on a house behind the
Quirinal, almost over the wall of the city, and which belonged to the
Jesuits. They forced an entrance into the premises, and there found three
persons making signals to the enemy. These three were Jesuits, and one of
them was recognised as the very incognito who, a few hours previously,
was encouraging the people to fight. They were arrested, and when on
their way to the state prison, the Jesuit wearing the moustache being
recognised by some women, they tore him from the hands of the escort,
stabbed him, and threw both him and his companions into the Tiber. Five
persons were afterwards taken and executed _under suspicion_ of being
accomplices in this criminal action. I beg to be excused for having
indulged in these remarks. They are wrung from a man who has witnessed
many of their iniquities, and experienced much of their perfidy. I may,
however, assure the reader that the narrator will not be influenced by
these recollections.
PORTUGAL.
If the conduct of the Jesuits in Portugal was not of so criminal a nature
as in England, it was certainly far more bold, and productive of more
disastrous consequences to the Portuguese nation. We have already seen
that the Jesuits had, from the very first, acquired great influence in
that country, an influence which, after the death of John III., became
paramount. During and after the minority of Don Sebastian, the Jesuits
were the confessors of all the royal family. Consalves de Camera was
first the tutor and afterwards the confessor of the young king, and
possessed such an ascendancy over his mind, that nothing important
was done without his consent or that of his brother Martin, Count of
Calhette. Catherine of Austria, sister of Charles V., and grandmother to
the king, a wise and clear-sighted princess, dismissed her confessor,
and complained to General Borgia of the domineering spirit of the
Jesuits. For this she was deprived of the regency, which devolved on
Cardinal Henry, devoted both soul and body to the order. Meanwhile Don
Sebastian had reached manhood, and the nation was impatient to see him
married, that the line of royal descent might be unbroken. A French
princess, and a daughter of the emperor Maximilian, were considered fit
matches, but were both rejected. The Jesuits were accused of preventing
Don Sebastian from marrying, with the design of making a Jesuit of him,
and then becoming heirs to his throne. Strange as this accusation may
appear, yet it is true in its principal part. Let us first listen to what
Pasquier, a contemporary historian, and a celebrated advocate of the
Parliament of Paris, says on the point:—“The Jesuits, shrewd and well
advised as they were, saw that this territory (Portugal) was a proper
soil to make their vine-tree fruitful, and, in order that they might
the better succeed in their projects, on their very entrance into the
kingdom they caused themselves to be called not Jesuits, but apostles,
comparing themselves with those who followed our Lord, and they are
there still designated by the same name. The sovereignty having fallen
into the hands of Don Sebastian, these good apostles thought that the
kingdom of Portugal would soon become the property of their community;
and they frequently solicited him that no one should in future be King
of Portugal except a Jesuit, and chosen by their own order, in the same
way that the Popes at Rome are elected by the College of Cardinals. And
because the king, although superstitious as superstition itself, could
not, or, to speak more correctly, dared not, subscribe to their wishes,
they persuaded him that it had been so ordered by God, as he himself
would hear by a voice from heaven near the sea-shore. This poor prince
was so misled as to go there two or three times, but they could not act
their part so well as to make him hear the voice. They had not as yet
in their company an impostor to rival Justinian, who in Rome was able
to counterfeit the leprous. These gentlemen, perceiving that they could
not gain their ends by this way, did not, however, give up the pursuit.
This king, Jesuit from his soul, would not marry. In order to render
themselves still more important, they advised him to march against the
kingdom of Fez, where he was killed in a pitched battle. This was the
fruit which Don Sebastian reaped for having believed the Jesuits. What
I have just related I learned from the deceased Marquis of Pisani, an
excellent Roman Catholic, and the French ambassador at the Spanish
court.”[158] For our own part, while we are convinced of the truth of
the selfish plot, we do not entirely agree with Pasquier in regard to
the end which he attributes to them. Bold and daring as they are, they
would not have braved popular opinion with such impudence. They were too
clear-sighted not to be aware that the European courts would not permit
them to have the possession of the throne. Yet Pasquier did not invent
this piece of romance himself. The same, or nearly the same, story was
repeated throughout all Europe. And this is so true, that Father Maggio,
Provincial of Austria, wrote to Borgia from Prague, in the year 1571, in
the following manner:—“Here the people talk of nothing else than of the
Portuguese affairs. Despatches come from Spain, announcing that the king
often acts so as to alarm the whole nation. They add, that our brethren
(_les nôtres_) are the instigators of such conduct; that they wish to
make a Jesuit of the king; and there are not wanting those who assert,
that they (_les nôtres_) have alone prohibited him from marrying the
French king’s sister.”[159]
This letter evidently shews that all Europe believed that the Jesuits
were masters of Portugal, and that they had the disposal of the crown
almost entirely at their will. Moreover, as we have seen, the Jesuits
were accused of having instigated the impetuous king to undertake the
conquest of Morocco, in which attempt he lost both his life and his
kingdom.
Let us, however, to be impartial, listen to their justification.
Crétineau asserts that these accusations were calumnies, and gives us
the following as proof:—On the marriage question, he produces part of a
letter written by the accused Father Consalves himself, in which, after
having contradicted most of the calumniations which had been heaped upon
him, he adds—“So, if I have anything to reproach myself with, it is for
insisting too much that the marriage might take place. Those who told the
Pope that the heart of the king was in my hands, and that I can direct
his affections as I please, think of Sebastian what they would believe
of any other young man of his age.... But he is obstinate, and in this
matter he remains immovable to all my advices.”[160] We shall scarcely be
blamed, however, if we confess ourselves sceptical regarding the truth of
these justifications.
To exculpate the fathers for having induced the king to undertake the
expedition against Morocco, Crétineau quotes a passage from Mendoza, a
man entirely devoted to the Jesuits, in which he simply asserts, “That
all the Jesuits were opposed to the expedition to Africa.” These two
lines, written long after the event, and by a partisan of the order,
constitute the only proof of their innocence which the Jesuits can adduce.
After such attempted justifications, there can remain no doubt that the
Jesuits wrested the crown from the head of Don Sebastian, to place it
upon that of Philip II. Philip was at that time the friend and the most
powerful supporter of the Jesuits. He was the chief of the Roman Catholic
party—the hope of the Papists—the dread of the Protestants. These
reasons, I believe, induced the Jesuits to accomplish this abominable
treachery. At the death of Don Sebastian, Cardinal Henry assumed the
name of king, and asked from the estates of Portugal that Philip should
be declared his successor. They refused. Philip invaded Portugal. The
Jesuits used all their influence in his favour, excommunicated Don
Antonio de Crato, the legitimate heir of the crown, and placed Philip on
the throne of their benefactors. We must observe, that we believe that
neither the honest and conscientious Borgia nor the old and insignificant
Mercurianus were privy to this treacherous transaction. They were persons
in no way to be trusted with such secrets. It thus happened that the
Portuguese monarchs, who first nursed these sons of Loyola in their
bosoms, found that they had been giving life to a serpent, which now
stung them to the heart. But unfortunately the example was lost; the
Portuguese monarchs continued to submit to the Jesuits, and one of them,
Joseph I., barely escaped falling under the poniard of the assassin hired
by the fathers.
FRANCE.
We have seen the Jesuits executed in England as traitors. We beheld
them in Portugal, as successful conspirators, dispose of a sceptre
wrested from the hands of their benefactors. We shall now see them in
France acting the part of traitors, conspirators, and regicides, and
the principal cause of an indescribable evil. We have already mentioned
the famous _arrêt_ (decision) of 1554, by which the parliament of Paris
refused to admit the Jesuits into the kingdom. From this time, down to
the year 1562, the disciples of Loyola had repeatedly obtained from the
French sovereign letters patent authorising their establishment; but
the parliament by repeated _arrêts_ refusing to register them, rendered
these letters nugatory, and the contest went on, with no prospect of
decision. The king, the Guises, and a party of the nobles, sided with
the Jesuits. The parliament, the university, the Bishop of Paris and
his clergy, were against them. The principal objection to the admission
of the Jesuits which was advanced by their adversaries was, that they
had obtained from the Court of Rome privileges[161] which made them
independent of the ordinary and of every other ecclesiastical authority.
To obviate this objection, the Jesuits, in 1560, determined to carry
their point, presented a petition to the king, in which they renounced
their privileges, and solemnly engaged to respect the laws of the realm
and those of the Gallican Church, and to submit to the jurisdiction of
the ordinaries.[162] The court now imperatively commanded the parliament
to admit the Jesuits. The Archbishop de Belley, vanquished by “the
urgency of the court, from which he expected the Cardinal’s hat,”[163]
partly withdrew his opposition, and gave his consent, but under so many
restrictions, that, as Crétineau says, it was rather a protest against
them than anything else. The parliament, which till now had withheld
its consent, leaning on the archbishop’s opposition, now registered the
king’s letters patent, but under the same restrictions; adding, that
the Jesuits might appeal to the next national council or assembly. At
this very time a national council was convened at Poissy, to put an
end, if possible, to religious dissension, and heal the wounds of the
Church. Catherine de Medici, whose favourite maxim was, _divide et
imperia_, shewed herself impartial in this contest, thinking to retain
the obedience of one party by the fear it had of the other. She herself,
therefore, along with the king and the whole court, assisted at the
Council of Poissy. We shall not enter into the theological discussions
of this assembly. We shall only say, that although a Roman Catholic
cardinal presided over and directed it, and although the Roman Catholics
had a large majority, yet the eloquence of the Calvinistic divines, and
especially that of Beza, was so overpowering, that Lainez, after having
had a thrust or two at the redoubted champion, declared it to be almost a
mortal sin to admit Protestants to a discussion; and by his advice, the
Council broke up without any result.
The assembly, before it broke up, after a great deal of debating, decided
that the Jesuits should be admitted on the condition that they submitted
to the laws of the nation and of the Gallican Church, that the ordinary
bishops should have all authority over them, and that they should
renounce all their privileges, and take another name than “The Society of
Jesus,” or “Jesuits.” By this decision, the Jesuit question was at last
settled. Now, to shew with what facility these wily monks can renounce
their most approved doctrines, and invent a new principle for every
contingency, that they may succeed in any of their undertakings, we shall
set forth the principal points of doctrine of the Gallican Church, which
were already received in France, and which were more solemnly sanctioned
in 1662.
“The Pope is the chief of the Roman Catholic religion, but he can neither
excommunicate the king, nor lay an interdict upon the kingdom; nor has he
any jurisdiction over temporal matters; nor can he dismiss the bishops
from their office, who hold their power from Christ as his successors,
and who, when he ascended up into heaven, bade them go and preach the
gospel to every creature. The Pope’s legate cannot exercise any authority
in France, unless empowered by the king. An appeal from the sentence of
the Pope is permitted to be made to a general council, which possesses a
power superior to that of the Pope; but even the decrees of council are
not received in France, when they attack the rights of the king, or those
of the Gallican Church; for which reason the Council of Trent itself was
received in France regarding articles of faith, but not regarding matters
of discipline.”[164]
These were the principal points to which the Jesuits swore conformity.
How despicable must be the man who is ready to take a special oath for
every occasion, and to invoke the God of truth to witness his perjury and
infamy!
The Jesuits had no sooner set their foot in France than they began to
spread rapidly over the country, and soon after aspired to enter the
university and monopolise the whole of the education of the youth.
With part of the immense fortune bequeathed to them by the Bishop
of Clermont, of which they at last got possession, notwithstanding
the opposition of the parliament, they built a college in the Rue St
Jacques, near the Sorbonne, and, pretending to obey the orders of the
parliament, which enjoined them to renounce the name of the Society of
Jesus, they inscribed on the front of it, “College of the Society of
the _Name_ of Jesus.” But the university would not admit them into its
bosom, notwithstanding all the intrigues of the fathers and the orders
of the Court. Of this protracted contest, which terminated in favour
of the Jesuits in 1616, we shall only transcribe part of an apology
addressed by the university to Pope Gregory XIII.—“We do not,” wrote the
university, “vex either churches or private persons; we do not trouble
the order of succession; we do not solicit testaments in prejudice of the
heirs, or appropriate the profits to our own interest; we do not plot
devices to seize upon the benefices of the monasteries, or of any other
ecclesiastical establishment, to enrich ourselves with their property,
without being subject to the conditions imposed by the founders; we do
not make use of the name of Jesus to deceive the consciences of princes,
affirming that no one remains longer than ten years in purgatory.”[165]
Our history is becoming too pregnant with grave events to allow us to
relate matters of secondary importance. We shall therefore bring down our
readers to the year 1577, when was formed the celebrated league which
gave occasion to the bloody and protracted civil wars of France, and of
which the Jesuits were the chief instigators.
Remorse for the massacre of St Bartholomew had deprived Charles IX. of
his reason, and brought him to an early grave. His brother, Henry III.,
who succeeded him, either awed by the fate of Charles, or occupied
only with his pleasures, allowed those same Protestants whom, as Duke
of Anjou, he had defeated at Moncontour and other places, to live in
peace. Henry’s indolence favoured the ambitious views of the Duke of
Guise, who aspired at nothing less than the throne of France. He and his
partisans, particularly the Jesuits, stirred up the fanaticism of the
more bigoted of the citizens against the king, who, although a scrupulous
observer of all those external practices in which the Popish religion
chiefly consists, was considered by the Church party a bad Catholic. A
remedy was to be found, lest France should become a Protestant country.
An association was accordingly set on foot, which took the name of
the League, or “Holy Union.” The vulgar saw in it the bulwark of the
faith—Philip of Spain, indirectly the sovereignty of France—and Henry of
Guise, the throne. The members of this association took the following
oath:—“I swear to God, the Creator, and under penalty of anathema and
eternal damnation, that I have entered into this Catholic Association,
according to the form of the treaty which has just been read to me,
loyally and sincerely either to command, or to obey and serve; and I
promise with my life and my honour, to continue therein to the last drop
of my blood, without resisting it or withdrawing from it, at any command,
or any pretext, excuse, or occasion whatsoever.”[166] In 1577, Guise
was declared chief of the League; and in 1584, he, a subject, had the
audacity to enter publicly into a confederacy with Philip II. of Spain.
The Articles of Alliance purported, “that a confederacy, offensive and
defensive, was entered into betwixt the king and the Catholic princes in
behalf of themselves and their descendants, for the maintenance of the
Roman Catholic religion in France as well as the Low Countries: and, on
the death of Henry III., to take measures that Cardinal de Bourbon should
be appointed his successor; the heretic and relapsed princes being for
ever excluded from the right of succession.”[167]
Henry III.’s position became very precarious. The Guises were in
possession of many of the chief towns, and Duke Henry was the idol of the
people. The king, to avoid the impending danger, feigned to adhere to
the League—declared himself its chief—waged war with the Protestants—and
consented to give more towns and places of security into the hands
of his enemies. Nevertheless the king’s opponents remitted nothing
of their hostility, and filled the nation with hatred of his person,
venting itself in curses and imprecations. In Paris, the stronghold of
the League, the question was publicly discussed whether Henry should be
deposed. The king advanced towards the capital with some troops. Guise
hastened to it against the king’s express command. The people took up
arms—barricades were erected—the royal army was defeated—and the king
obliged to fly.[168] Maffei and Crétineau reproach the Duke of Guise for
allowing him to escape uninjured. Henry, concealing his hatred, feigned
again to submit, summoned a parliament to meet at Blois, and conferred
upon Guise almost unlimited power over the kingdom. But in the very
moment in which he saw within his grasp the prize which he so eagerly
sought, he fell, along with his brother the cardinal, in the royal
palace, a victim of the king’s revenge. Thus Guise perished, not, as he
deserved, by the sword of justice, but by the poniard of an assassin.
The deed cannot be excused. The League thundered anathemas against the
king; the University of Paris excommunicated him; and the parliament
declared that “the aforesaid Henry of Valois should be condemned to make
honourable amends, dressed only in his shirt, with a rope about his neck,
assisted by the executioner, and holding in his hand a lighted torch
weighing thirty pounds; that from that moment he should be deposed,
and declared unworthy of the crown of France; and that, renouncing all
right to it, he should be afterwards banished and placed in a convent
of the Hieromites, there to fast on bread and water for the rest of his
days.”[169]
Priests and Jesuits from every pulpit poured out volleys of curses upon
that tyrant, who deserved to be swept from the face of the earth. And
while the king, now in league with Henry of Navarre, was marching towards
Paris, Clement, a Dominican friar, stabbed him at St Cloud, on the first
of August 1589.
Great was the consternation of the royalists, and greater the rejoicing
of the adverse party, at this tragic event. The Council of Seize[170] met
on the 6th of September, and addressed a letter to all the preachers,
in which, among other things, was the following exhortation:—“You must
justify Jacques Clement’s deed, because it is the same as that of Judith,
which is so much commended in Holy Writ.”[171] Henry of Bourbon, king
of Navarre, the legitimate heir, after the death of Henry III., assumed
the title of king of France, and was supported by the less bigoted of
the Roman Catholics and by all the Calvinists. The Cardinal de Bourbon,
on the other hand, also took the title of king, and was supported by the
fanatic Papists, headed by all the priests and monks in the kingdom.
Philip of Spain, the life and guardian of the League, sent an army to
its aid; and the Pope despatched Cardinal Cajetan, accompanied by two
Jesuits, with large sums of money, to foment and maintain the revolt
against the excommunicated Henry IV.
Sixtus V. at first shewed great zeal in opposing the right of the heretic
Henry of Navarre.[172] He promised to send 18,000 infantry and 700 horse
into France. He threatened the Venetians with excommunication for having
acknowledged Henry IV. as king, and for once relaxed the reins of his
well-known parsimony, by sending his legate a sum of money to continue
the war in France. But, when he perceived what were the projects of
Philip; when he learned that that monarch proposed to marry his daughter
the Infanta to the young Duke of Guise, who was to assume the title of
king; and when Les Seize, instigated by the Jesuits, renouncing every
national feeling, went so far as to proclaim Philip king of France,
Sixtus, afraid of the domineering spirit of Philip, and the absolute
power he would acquire if successful in his design, relaxed in his
enmity towards Henry—expressed regret for having excommunicated him—and
gave other tokens of the change his opinion had undergone. The legate,
however, disregarding the Pope’s intentions, carried out his first
instructions with unremitting zeal.[173]
The civil war, with all its horrors, lasted for five years. To shorten
it, Henry descended to an act which has tarnished his glory, and the
fame of his virtue. He abjured the doctrines of Calvinism to enter into
communion with the Church of Rome, which he despised, and excused himself
by saying, “Paris vaut bien une messe”—Paris is well worth a mass.[174]
But his apostasy availed him little. The Parisians continued firm
against him. The monks, and especially the Jesuits, encouraged them in
their resistance. Priests and soldiers simultaneously, they passed from
the pulpit to the besieged walls, replacing the sacerdotal robes by a
coat of mail, the crucifix by a spear. Solemn processions crossed the
town and called upon the people to be firm in defence of their faith,
trusting in God to protect them and to bless their impious enterprise.
The Pope’s legate, dressed in his pontifical robes, was foremost in these
processions, and supported the fanaticism of the multitude, to whom he
dispensed a thousand benisons. On the other hand, Mendoza, the Spanish
ambassador, the same who, after the assassination of Henry, wrote to his
master, “We must ascribe this happy event to the Almighty alone”—Mendoza,
to divert the hunger of the deluded Parisians, distributed, in the name
of his Most Catholic Majesty Philip, some Spanish coin to the populace,
who, thus encouraged, raised the shout, “Long life to our king Philip!”
It is painful to think of all the horrors which this misguided people
endured while they listened to the persuasions of the priests to persist
in their rebellion. At last hunger, all-powerful hunger, proved stronger
than the king’s army. Famished Paris yielded, and Henry ascended the
throne of his ancestors.
Thus ended the League. Let us now see what share the Jesuits had in it.
Mezarai, speaking of the League, says, “The zealous Catholics were the
chief instruments in it; the new monks (the Jesuits) the paranymphs and
trumpeters; and the nobles of the kingdom the authors and chiefs.”[176]
From its very beginning, the Jesuits were the most ardent promoters of
the League. They ran from place to place, from country to country, to
enlist new supporters, and to strengthen the tie of the holy union.
Claude Matthieu, the Provincial, went several times from Paris to Rome,
to obtain the Pope’s approval of the holy union.[177] He was called
the messenger of the League; and Pasquier, in his old, quaint style, in
speaking of another Jesuit, says, “As the Company of the Jesuits was
composed of all sorts of people, _les uns pour la plume, les autres pour
le poil_, so they had among them one Father Henry Sammier, a man inclined
and adapted to all kinds of daring.[178] He was sent by the League in
1581 to various Catholic princes _pour sonder le gué_, to sound the ford;
and, to speak the truth, they could not have chosen a fitter man, for he
changed himself into as many different forms as the different affairs he
had to undertake—sometimes dressed as a trooper, sometimes as a priest,
sometimes as a simple beggar. He was acquainted with cards, dice, ...
as well as with his canonical hours; and in doing this, he said that he
could not sin, since it was to arrive at a good end.”[179] But, without
referring to ancient authors, two lines from Crétineau will say more
than we could. “It was at this epoch” (1584), says he, “that the League
acquired all its consistency, and it is at the same epoch that you may
see the Jesuits in Paris, Lyons, Toulouse, _joining the insurrection and
organising it_.”[180] And of this insurrection, or civil war, Pasquier,
an eye-witness, says,—“It was less a civil war than a _coupe-gorge_—a
cut-throat. The colleges of the Jesuits were, as was notorious, the
general rendezvous of persons hostile to the king. There were fabricated
their gospels in cipher—_se forgoient leurs Evangiles en chiffre_—which
they sent into foreign countries. There their apostles were distributed
among the different provinces, some, to keep the troubles alive by their
preaching, as did Father Commolet in Paris, and Father Rouillet at
Bourges; others, to preach murder and assassination, as did Father Varade
and the same Father Commolet.”[181] But we need not multiply quotations
to prove that they had a great share in exciting these troubles. They
themselves confess it with pride. In their _Litteræ Annuæ_ of 1589, they
represent the murder of the king as a miracle which happened the very
day they were expelled from Bordeaux. When Clement’s mother came to
Paris, the Jesuits called upon the people to worship her; the portrait of
the assassin, now called a martyr, was exposed on the altars to public
veneration, and they even proposed to erect a statue to him in the
cathedral of Notre Dame.
We will, however, admit that all the Jesuits were not fanatic Leaguers;
not because they disapproved of the League, but simply from good policy,
or from interested motives. Auger, the king’s confessor, and who wished
to be provincial, sided with his penitent; and the General Acquaviva,
the ablest and most profound politician of his time, disapproved of the
Society’s engaging so deeply with one party as to cause the ruin of the
order if the other triumphed. He forbade the Jesuits who were in France
to take part in the contest (which advice, however, they disregarded),
and begged permission of the Pope to command his subordinate Father
Matthieu to leave France, and betake himself to a distant country—which
clearly proves, that the Jesuits in France acted under the Pope’s own
authority. “But Sixtus V.,” says Crétineau, “was not so gentle as Gregory
XIII.; when he met an enemy, he fought with him; accordingly he answered
the General that the Leaguers acted very rightly, and only did their
duty.”[182] Acquaviva, however, was as jealous of his authority as the
imperious and terrible Sixtus. When Father Matthieu arrived at Loretto
on his return to France, the General ordered him not to leave the town
without his consent; and the poor messenger died a few months after, from
sheer inactivity. Auger, for reasons unknown to us, was recalled. Another
provincial, Father Pigenat, was sent to France—a man who, in the language
of De Thou, “was a furious Leaguer, and as fanatic as a Corybante,”
and who, according to Arnauld, “was the most cruel tiger that prowled
through Paris.” In fact, after his arrival, the Jesuits became still more
audacious, and engaged in more criminal proceedings.
After Henry IV. had abjured the Protestant faith, and when he was at
Melun, a man was arrested on suspicion of having come thither to make an
attempt upon his life. Barrière—such was the assassin’s name—to escape
the torture, acknowledged his guilt. He confessed that having consulted
with Aubrey, a curate of Paris, regarding his project, he was highly
commended, and sent to Varade, the rector of the Jesuits, who confirmed
him in his praiseworthy resolution, and gave him his benediction; that
next morning he confessed to another Jesuit, and received the communion.
Barrière repeated on the scaffold the declaration he had already made;
and Pasquier, who was at Melun at the time, declares that he had examined
the culprit, had read the informations and depositions, and even handled
the knife with which the crime was to have been perpetrated.[183] Mezarai
confirms the testimony of Pasquier in the most unequivocal manner.
“When the king,” says he, “had reduced Paris to submission, he gave a
safe-conduct to the Cardinal of Plaisance, who had acted with so much
energy against him, and granted him permission to take with him Aubrey,
curate of St André des Arcs, and the Jesuit Varade, although culpable of
participating in the horrible assassination of Barrière.”[184]
Barrière was executed, but his fate did not deter other fanatics from
making similar attempts, nor the Jesuits from giving them encouragement.
A few months after Henry had made his entrance into Paris, a youth of
nineteen, named John Chastel, raised an impious hand against the king.
The blow was aimed at his throat, but happening to bend his head at
the instant to salute one of his courtiers, it only wounded his lips.
Chastel was a student of philosophy in the Jesuits’ College under Father
Gueret. He confessed that “in the Jesuits’ house, he had been often
in the chamber of meditation, into which the Jesuits introduced the
greatest sinners, where they were shewn the pictures of devils and other
frightful figures to induce them to lead a better life, and, by working
upon their spirits, to induce them by these admonitions to perform some
extraordinary deed.” He further confessed that he had heard the Jesuits
say “that it was lawful to kill the king, since he was out of the
Church; and that no one ought to obey him, or acknowledge him as king,
till he should be approved of by the Pope.”[185] The murderer, on his
examination, boldly maintained this last proposition; and “this avowal,”
says Mezarai, “joined to the injurious libels against Henry III. and the
reigning king; joined to the ardour which the Jesuits had shewn for the
interests of Spain, and to the doctrines their preachers had propounded
against the security of the king, and against the ancient law of the
kingdom; joined also to the opinion held of them, that by means of their
colleges and auricular confession, they directed the minds of the youth
and timid consciences to whatever they pleased, gave an opportunity to
the parliament to involve the Society in his punishment.”[186] In fact,
the parliament, by the same _arrêt_ (29th Dec. 1594), by which Chastel
was condemned to the punishment of the parricide, enacted that “the
priests and scholars of Clermont College, and all others of the so-called
Society of Jesus, as corrupters of youth, disturbers of the public peace,
enemies to the king and the state, shall, three days after the present
intimation, be obliged to leave Paris and other towns and places where
they have colleges, and, within a fortnight after, the kingdom; under the
penalty, if found in France after that time, of being punished for high
treason. Their property, movable and immovable, shall be employed for
charitable purposes, and all the king’s subjects, under the same penalty,
are forbidden to send pupils to the colleges of the Society which are
beyond the territories of the kingdom.”[187]
All the Jesuits, except Fathers Gueret and Guinard, who were arrested,
were expelled from France. Gueret, against whom no substantial proofs
of being an accomplice with Chastel, could be produced, was soon after
liberated from prison and banished. This is a striking proof of the
justice and rectitude of the parliament. Guinard, in whose possession
were found most abominable writings, subversive of every principle of
justice and morality,[188] was condemned and executed; in conformity
with a proclamation issued some months before by the king, in which it
was ordered that all books and writings referring to the past troubles
should be burned, under pain of death. Crétineau confesses the fact, but
exculpates the man, by saying that these writings were composed in the
time of the League in the year 1589. But this assertion is contradicted
by the quotation we have given in the note, which shews that some of
them at least were composed after Henry’s abjuration, which occurred
four years later, in 1593. And again, if they _had_ been written at the
time specified, why did he not burn them, in obedience to the king’s
commandment?
Great horror was now felt throughout France at these repeated acts
of regicide, with an abhorrence of the Jesuits, as the well-known
instigators of such nefarious deeds. The parliament, the interpreter
here of the public opinion (Henry having gained over to him many of his
former opponents by his clemency and generosity), by another _arrêt_,
January 10, 1595, ordered that Chastel’s house should be destroyed,
and a pyramid be erected in its stead, to perpetuate the memory of his
infamy and that of his associates. In consequence, four inscriptions
were engraved on the four faces of this pyramid, in all of which, the
name of Chastel was coupled with that of the Jesuits. In the first
inscription, the assassin was described as impelled to the commission of
the crime “by the pestilential heresy of that new sect (the Jesuits),
which, concealing under the garb of piety the most atrocious crimes, had
of late taught that it was lawful to kill the king.” In the second was
the _arrêt_ of parliament, condemning Chastel and the Jesuits, part of
which we have already given. In the third, the senate and the people of
Paris congratulate the king on his having exterminated “that pestilential
sect” (the Jesuits). And the fourth inscription was, “A house once stood
here, which was destroyed for the guilt of one of its inhabitants, who
had been instructed in a school of impiety by perverse masters.”[189]
In 1605, the Jesuits were again powerful enough in France, to get the
pyramid demolished; and in 1606 a fountain was erected in its place.
And this seems to us to be the proper place to lay before our readers the
political creed of the Jesuits. Observe, the following extracts are taken
from none but their most approved authors, and such as are held in high
estimation among their brethren.
Emmanuel Sa. _Aphorismi Confessariorum._ (Venet. 1595. Coloniæ, 1616. Ed.
Coll. Sion).—“The rebellion of an ecclesiastic against the king is not a
crime of high treason, because he is not subject to the king.”
“He who tyrannically governs an empire, which he has justly obtained,
cannot be deprived of it without a public trial; but when sentence has
been passed, _every man may become an executor of it; and he may be
deposed by the people, even although perpetual obedience were sworn to
him, if, after admonition given, he will not be corrected_.”
John Bridgewater. _Concertatio Ecclesiæ Catholicæ in Anglia adversus
Calvino-Papistas._ (Augustæ Trevirorum, 1594.)—“If the kings be the first
to break their solemn league and oath, and violate the faith which they
have pledged to God, the people are not only permitted, but they are
required, and their duty demands, that, at the mandate of the Vicar of
Christ, who is the sovereign pastor of all the nations of the earth, the
fidelity which they previously owed or promised to such princes should
not be kept.”
Robert Bellarmine. _Disputationes de Controversiis Christianæ Fidei
adversus hujus temporis Hæreticos_, tom. I. (Ingolstadii, 1596. Parisiis,
1608. Ed. Mus. Brit.)—“The spiritual power, as a spiritual prince, may
change kingdoms, and transfer them from one sovereign to another, if it
should be necessary for the salvation of souls.”
“Christians may not tolerate an infidel or heretic king, if he endeavours
to draw his subjects to his heresy or infidelity. But it is the province
of the sovereign Pontiff, to whom the care of religion has been
intrusted, to decide whether the king draws them to heresy or not. It is
therefore for the Pontiff to determine whether the king is to be deposed
or not.”
John Mariana. _De Rege et Regis Institutione libri tres._ (Moguntiæ,
1605.... 1640. Ed. Mus. Brit.)—“It is necessary to consider attentively
what course should be pursued in deposing a prince, lest sin be added
to sin, and one crime be punished by the commission of another. This is
the shortest and the safest way;—_to deliberate, in a public meeting, if
it can be held_, upon what should be determined by the common consent,
and to consider as firmly fixed and established whatever may be resolved
by the general opinion. In which case, the following course must be
pursued. First of all, the prince must be admonished and brought back
to his senses. If he does not amend, begin by refusing to obey him;
... and, if necessary, destroy with the sword that prince who has been
declared a public enemy. But you will ask what is to be done if a public
meeting cannot be held, which may very frequently happen. In my opinion,
a similar judgment must be formed; for when the state is oppressed by the
tyranny of any of the princes, and the people are deprived of the power
of assembling, the _will_ to abolish the tyranny is not wanting, or to
avenge the manifest and intolerable crimes of the prince, and to restrain
his mischievous efforts: _I shall never consider that man to have done
wrong, who, favouring the public wishes, would attempt to kill him!_”
Gabriel Vasquez. _Comment. et Disput. in primam Partem, et primam
secundæ Summæ, S. Th. Aquinatis_, tom. II. (Ingolstadii, 1615. Antverpiæ,
1621. Ed. Coll. Sion.):—“If all the members of the royal family are
heretics, a new election to the throne devolves on the state. For all
his (the king’s) successors could be justly deprived of the kingdom by
the Pope; because the preservation of the faith, which is of greater
importance, requires that it should be so. But if the kingdom were thus
polluted, the Pope, as supreme judge in the matters of the faith, might
appoint a Catholic king for the good of the whole realm, and might place
him over it by force of arms if it were necessary. For, the good of the
faith and of religion, requires that the supreme head of the Church
should provide a king for the state.”
Busembaum and Lacroix. _Theologia Moralis, nunc pluribus partibus aucta
à R. P. Claudo Lacroix, Societatis Jesu._ (Coloniæ, 1757. Coloniæ
Agrippinæ, 1733. Ed. Mus. Brit.);—“A man who has been excommunicated
by the Pope may be killed anywhere, as Fillincius, Escobar, and Deaux
teach; because the Pope has at least an indirect jurisdiction over the
whole world, even in temporal things, as far as may be necessary for the
administration of spiritual affairs, as all the Catholics maintain, and
as Suarez proves against the King of England.”
Such were the principles and such the acts of the so-called soldiers
of Christ, and such the just punishment inflicted on their crimes. We
hardly find in history a sect, bearing the Christian name, convicted of
so many and such atrocious crimes—so publicly stigmatised and held up to
the just hatred of posterity. For if, in moments of feverish exaltation,
political or religious fanatics of every denomination have perpetrated
iniquitous and barbarous crimes, no other party has subsequently, in
calmer times, accepted the responsibility of these crimes, and praised
them as virtuous or meritorious actions. But there is no Jesuit, that I
know of, who has ever impugned or disclaimed the doctrines I have just
pointed out. My English readers ought seriously to meditate upon this
fact, and upon those doctrines, to which the Jesuits still firmly adhere.
Queen Victoria is in their eyes as much a heretic as Henry of Navarre,
and I have no doubt that they wish her to meet with the same fate. I am
an advocate for toleration, and abhor the very idea of persecution; but,
most assuredly, without persecuting those priests and Jesuits, the most
inveterate enemies of the Protestant religion, I would not countenance
them, or encourage and support them by grants of public money. Theirs is
not a religion of tolerance. They do not look upon other Christians as
brethren, holding different forms of belief, or as, at worst, persons
who have been misled by ignorance. No! in their view, every one who is
not a Roman Catholic is an accursed heretic, condemned already, and,
if he die in this condition, doomed to everlasting damnation. They are
not content to be received to the rights of citizenship on terms of
equality—they aspire to domination. What rights and privileges can they
reasonably claim from persons towards whom they cherish such sentiments?
Surely those Papists who would maintain their religion by persecution and
tyranny, ought to be thankful, if they are suffered to live at peace and
unmolested, in a Protestant country.
GERMANY.
While the Jesuits in France and in England, where the monarch was
adverse to them, not only propounded the doctrine of the sovereignty
of the people, but taught that every individual had a right to
murder the king if he were disliked by the nation or accursed by the
Pope—in Poland, Sweden, and Germany, where the population was adverse
and the sovereign friendly to them, they inculcated the contrary
doctrine, and did not scruple to enforce it by the most cruel and
violent proceedings. In France and in England, Henry and Elizabeth had
forfeited their thrones by holding the doctrines of the Reformation.
In Sweden, the Jesuits compelled the Roman Catholic Sigismond to swear
to maintain the Confession of Augsburg, that he might not be driven
from his kingdom.[190] But in those countries, the Jesuits, being in
close alliance with the civil power, were the cause of more mischief,
and greatly injured the cause of truth and religion. The introduction
of the Jesuits into the north of Europe was the signal for a powerful
reaction against Protestantism; and they not only checked its progress,
but, what is more strange, they succeeded in reviving an obsolete
doctrine—the temporal supremacy of the Roman Church, which, after having
for centuries governed almost the whole of Europe, had fallen into decay,
and ought not, according to the ordinary course of human institutions,
to exercise any further influence, since it had not undergone any
material change or acquired a new prestige. Yet such was the case. Many
were the requisites of success possessed by the Jesuits. Admirable
unity of purpose—versatility of character—unscrupulous pliability of
conscience—the confessional—the pulpit—the conviction that upon their
first success depended the duration of their order, and, it must be
added, their unexceptionable outward conduct, all rendered them in
the highest degree fit for their task. But, above all, it was by the
education of the youth, that they wrought such changes in Germany. It
was, in fact, for this purpose that they were first introduced into the
country. In one of the autograph letters that Ferdinand I. wrote to
Loyola, he declares it to be his opinion, that the only means by which
the declining tenets of Catholicism could be restored in Germany was,
to supply the youth with learned and pious Catholic teachers.[191] The
Jesuits entered into the king’s view with amazing activity and energy.
They established themselves in Vienna in 1551, and soon after had the
management of the university. Their second important establishment was
at Cologne; the third, at Ingolstadt; and from these three principal
points, they spread all over Germany. We think we cannot do better than
transcribe a passage from Ranke on the project:—
“The efforts of the Jesuits were above all directed towards the
universities. Their ambition was to rival the fame of those of the
Protestants. The education of that day was a learned one merely, and
was based exclusively on the study of the ancient languages. This the
Jesuits prosecuted with earnest zeal, and in certain of their schools,
they had very soon professors who might claim a place with the restorers
of classical learning. Nor did they neglect the cultivation of the exact
sciences. At Cologne, Franz Koster lectured on astronomy in a manner at
once agreeable and instructive. But their principal object was still
theological discipline, as will be readily comprehended. The Jesuits
lectured with the utmost diligence even during the holidays, reviving the
practice of disputations, without which they declared all instruction
to be dead. These disputations, which they held in public, were
conducted with dignity and decorum, were rich in matter, and altogether
the most brilliant that had ever been witnessed. In Ingolstadt, they
soon persuaded themselves that their progress in theology was such as
would enable the university to compete successfully with any other in
Germany. Ingolstadt now acquired an influence among Catholics similar
to that possessed among Protestants by Wittemberg and Geneva. They
next established schools for the poor—arranged modes of instruction
adapted to children—and enforced the practice of catechising. Canisius
prepared his catechism, which satisfied the wants of the learners by its
well-connected questions and apposite replies.
“This instruction was imparted entirely in the spirit of that fanciful
devotion, which had characterised the Jesuits from their earliest
establishment. The first rector in Vienna was a Spaniard named Juan
Victoria, a man who had signalised his entrance into the Society by
walking along the Corso of Rome, during the festivities of the carnival,
clothed in sackcloth, and scourging himself as he walked, till the blood
streamed from him on all sides. The children educated in the Jesuit
schools of Vienna were soon distinguished by their steadfast refusal of
such food as was forbidden on fast-days, while their parents ate without
scruple. In Cologne it was again become an honour to wear the rosary.
Relics were once more held up to public reverence in Treves, where for
many years no one had ventured to exhibit them. In the year 1560, the
youth of Ingolstadt belonging to the Jesuit school walked two and two
on a pilgrimage to Gichstadt, in order to be strengthened for their
confirmation ‘by the dew that dropped from the tomb of St Walpurgis.’
The modes of thought and feeling thus implanted in the schools, were
propagated by means of preaching and confession through the whole
population.”[192]
We add to all this, that their instructions were gratuitous, and that
the pupils made such rapid progress, that they were found to have learned
more in six months in a Jesuit school, than in two years anywhere else.
Many were the Protestants who sent their children to the Jesuit colleges:
and these children were kindly received by the masters, treated with
great indulgence, and premiums were freely bestowed upon them even in
preference to the Roman Catholic children. The Jesuits thus acquired an
immense influence, especially over the female part of the population,
who were proud of their children’s learning; while these imperceptibly
acquired a tinge of their masters’ doctrines and modes of thinking,
although in countries where the majority were Protestants, they were
expressly forbidden openly to propound them. Yet, notwithstanding all
these advantages, the Jesuits could not have hoped for such prodigious
success had it not been for the support they received from divers
sovereigns of the country. Perhaps we should be more correct in saying,
that these sovereigns called in the Jesuits to re-establish the ancient
religion.
At the commencement of the Reformation, even those German princes who
had not unreservedly embraced the new doctrines were exceedingly glad to
shake off the yoke of the Romish See; and, without separating themselves
from its communion, they made many concessions to their subjects, which
amounted in many places to toleration. Subsequently, however, the Popes
made them understand that by these concessions their sovereign authority
was greatly diminished, and that temporal princes and the head of the
Church were bound by a common interest to support each other. The princes
were easily persuaded to a policy which flattered their inclination to
despotism, and from that moment they not only resisted every new demand
for reform, but, to the utmost of their power, withdrew the concessions
they had formerly made. The first who entered upon this reactionary path
was Albert V. of Bavaria. Being in continual want of money to pay his
enormous debts, the estates would grant him no supplies without obtaining
in exchange some concessions, mostly of a religious kind. In this state
of things, Pius IV., through the medium of the Jesuits, and especially
of Canisius, persuaded him that any new concessions would diminish the
obedience of his subjects; and, in order to render him less dependent on
the estates, the Pope abandoned to him the tenth of the property of his
clergy.[193] The duke perceiving what advantage he might derive from a
closer alliance with the Court of Rome, decided at once to resist any
further demand, and firmly declared his intentions at the diet of 1563.
He found the prelates well disposed to second him; “and, whether it was
that the doctrines of a reviving Catholicism, and the activity of the
Jesuits, who insinuated themselves everywhere, had gained influence in
the cities, or that other considerations prevailed, the cities did not
insist as formerly upon religious concessions.”[194] The nobles only kept
up an opposition; but the duke, catching the opportunity of a sort of
conspiracy which he had discovered, deprived them of their right to seats
in the diet, and so became the almost absolute and uncontrolled master
of his people’s franchises. Then commenced the reaction. Encouraged
by the Jesuits, who had now acquired an unlimited influence over him,
Albert resolved not to leave a vestige of those new doctrines which for
the last forty years had been spreading so fast in his kingdom. All the
professors, all his household, all the civil officers—in a word, all
the public functionaries—were compelled to subscribe the _Professio
Fidei_ of the Council of Trent, and on their refusal, were immediately
dismissed. To obtain a recantation from the common people, he sent
through all his provinces swarms of Jesuits, accompanied by bands of
troopers, whose bayonets came to the aid of the preachers, when their
eloquence was unsuccessful in converting the heretics. The mildest
treatment the obstinate Protestants could expect, was to be expelled from
the duke’s estates without delay. Prohibited books were sought for in
the libraries, and burned in large numbers; those of a rigidly Catholic
character, on the contrary, were highly favoured. Relics were again held
in great veneration; and, in short, throughout the whole country were
revived all the ancient practices, all the absurd superstitions, of the
Popish religion. “Above all,” says Ranke, “the Jesuit institutions were
promoted; for by their agency it was, that the youth of Bavaria were to
be educated in a spirit of strict orthodoxy.”[195]
Duke Albert was now spoken of as the most bigoted Roman Catholic in
Germany, and became the protector of all those petty sovereigns who
wished to tread in his footsteps.
In Austria, although the reaction had long begun, coercive measures
against the Protestants were not resorted to till somewhat later. As we
have already said, Ferdinand invited the Jesuits to Vienna, and delivered
up to them the university as early as the year 1551. Soon after, he
established another Jesuit college at Prague, to which he sent his own
pages, and to which resorted all the nobility belonging to the Roman
communion. Colleges, and schools of less consequence, were established
throughout all the Austrian dominions, and great efforts were made to
win back the Protestants to the Romish faith. Yet, under the prudent and
conciliating Ferdinand I., and during the reign of the wise Maximilian,
the Jesuits could not obtain any severe persecuting measure against the
followers of the Reformed religion, but were more successful with Rodolph
II. Father Maggio, the Provincial of the Jesuits, was held by the emperor
in great estimation, and consulted in every matter of importance. He was
continually pressing the monarch to come to the resolution of completely
extirpating heresy from his dominions. The Pope’s legate and the Spanish
ambassador backed him in his intolerant demand. This bigoted prince at
last, under the pretence of a popular tumult, which took place on the
occasion of the procession of the Corpus Domini in 1578, banished from
his estates Opitz, a Protestant preacher, and all his assistants; and
this measure was the signal for a general persecution of the Lutherans.
The greatest atrocity and the utmost rigour were displayed in destroying
every trace of Protestantism.
In the first place, it was determined to extirpate Protestantism from the
imperial cities. The towns east of the Ens, which had separated from the
estates of the knights and nobles twenty years before, could offer no
resistance; the Reformed clergy were removed, and their places filled by
Catholic priests; private persons were subjected to a close examination.
A formula, according to which the suspected were interrogated, has come
into our possession. ‘Dost thou believe,’ inquires one of its articles,
‘that everything is true which the Church of Rome has laid down as the
rule of life and doctrine?’ ‘Dost thou believe,’ adds another, ‘that
the Pope is the head of the one Apostolic Church?’ No doubt was to
be endured. The Protestants were to be expelled from all offices of
state; none were admitted to the class of burghers who did not declare
themselves Catholics. In the universities, that of Vienna not excepted,
all who applied for a doctor’s degree were first required to subscribe
the _Professio Fidei_. A new regulation for schools was promulgated,
which prescribed Catholic formularies, fasts, worship, according to the
Catholic ritual, and the exclusive use of the Catechism of Canisius. In
Vienna, all Protestant books were taken away from the booksellers’ shops,
and were carried in heaps to the Episcopal court. Search was made at the
customhouses along the river; all packages were examined, and books or
pictures not considered purely Catholic were confiscated.[196]
All throughout Germany the same proceedings were resorted to, and
everywhere we find the Jesuits foremost in the reaction. There was no
bishop, no prince, who went to visit a province upon religious concerns,
who did not bring with him a troop of Jesuits, who, on his departure,
were often left there with almost unlimited powers.
POLAND.
If from Germany we pass to Poland, there also we meet the ominous
influence of the disciples of Loyola. “The Protestant cause,” says Count
Krasinski, in the fourth of his admirable _Lectures on Slavonia_, “was
endangered by the lamentable partiality which Stephen Batory had shewn to
the Jesuits; and the Romanist reaction, beginning under his reign, had
been chiefly promoted by the schools, which that order was everywhere
establishing.” Stephen, however, either too prudent to attack openly
the religion then professed, in Lithuania at least, by a great majority
of his subjects, or anxious to maintain, to a certain extent, religious
liberty, had recourse to no extraordinary measures for the furtherance of
this reaction, and contented himself with ordering that in future none
but strict Roman Catholics should be appointed to bishoprics. But under
the bigoted Sigismond—under that king, who, as the same learned Count
says, “gloried in the appellation of the king of the Jesuits, which was
given him by their antagonists, and who indeed became a mere tool in the
hands of the disciples of Loyola”—the reaction made fearful and continued
progress. Although Sigismond could attempt nothing by main force against
the liberties of his Protestant subjects, he had it in his power to
give, and he at last effectually gave, a mortal blow to the Reformed
religion. The chief prerogative of the Polish kings—we should perhaps
say, the only real power possessed by these nominal sovereigns—was the
right of conferring all dignities and official appointments. Twenty
thousand offices were at their disposal; and Sigismond declared that
none but strict Roman Catholics should be named to them. The favour of
the Jesuits was an essential condition of obtaining a situation under
the Government; and “the Starost Ludwig von Montager became Waivode of
Pomerellia, because he presented his house in Thorn to the Society of
Jesus.”[197] Many of the nobles who had professed the doctrines of the
Reformation, were induced to recant, depending exclusively as they did on
the king’s favour for the maintenance of their rank, and having no hope
for preferment while out of the pale of the Romish Church. The influence
of these examples, seconded by the rigorous measures subsequently taken
against the Lutherans, and, above all, by the diabolical cunning and
artifice of the Jesuits, in a short time brought back the great majority
of the Polish nation under the yoke of the Church of Rome.
SWEDEN.
In Sweden, the efforts of the Jesuits against Protestantism, although
no less active and vigorous, were less successful. John III., son of
the heroic Gustavus Vasa, on ascending the throne, published a ritual,
in which, to the great amazement and dismay of the Protestants, were
to be found not only ceremonies, but even doctrines of the Church of
Rome.[198] The Pope, apprised of this prince’s good disposition towards
his Church, despatched to Stockholm in all haste and secrecy, as his
legate, the famous Possevin, one of the cleverest and least scrupulous
among the Jesuits. To obviate the difficulty of obtaining admission
into the country and court of Sweden as Pope’s legate, Possevin, in
passing through Prague, induced the widow of the emperor Maximilian to
send him to Stockholm as her extraordinary ambassador. He assumed, in
consequence, another name, a splendid costume, and girded himself with
a sword, but, “to do penance in advance for these transient honours, he
went the greatest part of the way on foot.”[199] Acting publicly as the
envoy of the empress, he found means secretly to inform the king of his
real name and mission, and had several conferences with him. The result
was, that John was persuaded to make the _Professio Fidei_, according to
the formula of the Council of Trent, promising at the same time to take
measures, and to use all his endeavours, to induce the nation to follow
in the same path, provided the Pope would second him by making certain
concessions, the most essential of which were, that the sacramental cup
should be administered to the laity, and mass performed in the language
of the country. Possevin said that the Pope should be apprised of his
majesty’s will, and asked him whether he would submit to his decision
in this matter. John having answered in the affirmative, was absolved
of his sins, and received the sacrament according to the Roman Catholic
ritual.[200]
The Jesuit departed in high glee at his success, far surpassing his
most sanguine hopes. He hastened to Rome, and assuming a privilege in
use among ambassadors, he boasted of having achieved more than he had
really done, assuring Gregory XIII. that Sweden and its king were at
his Holiness’s mercy. He then laid before the Pope the conditions on
which John had insisted, but Gregory, either too intolerant to make any
concession, or considering it unnecessary to grant honourable terms to an
enemy who threw himself at his feet, refused to listen to such proposals,
and sent back the Jesuit to Stockholm, with letters to the king, in which
he required the monarch to declare himself a Catholic without restriction.
This imperious conduct saved Sweden from falling back under the Popish
rule. John, indignant at being held in so light account—indignant at the
assurance of Possevin, who unceremoniously entered Stockholm and the
court in the garb of his order as the Pope’s legate, and accompanied
by other Jesuits, as if Sweden had already become a Roman Catholic
country—moved by the remonstrances of the Protestant princes and divines,
who, in the interval of Possevin’s departure and return, had entreated
him to remain in their communion—dismissed the Pope’s ambassador, and
returned to the Reformed worship.
The attempts of the Jesuits to convert Sweden to the Roman faith were
revived with new vigour under John’s successor, Sigismond, the Polish
king. Fortunately, Charles of Sandermania, the king’s uncle, headed the
nation in its resistance to Sigismond’s Popish propensities; and although
the Jesuits had the sad glory of plunging Poland and Sweden into a bloody
war, the last-mentioned country remained Protestant.
SWITZERLAND AND PIEDMONT.
The Jesuits experienced some difficulty in entering Switzerland, and in
some parts of it they could not get footing; but towards the year 1574,
they established themselves in Friburg and Lucerne. They succeeded in
keeping back these two towns from the Alliance of Berne, and scattered
the flames of that religious discord between these cantons which was not
extinguished even by the blood that was shed at the instigation of the
Jesuits in 1845-47. The famous Canisius was the principal promoter and
founder of the College of Friburg, the resort, till lately, of a great
number of young men of the highest families, sent thither for education
from divers parts of Europe.
The cruelties exercised by Possevin against the inhabitants of the
Alps were most barbarous and revolting. Many Christians, driven out of
other countries by Popish persecution, had sought a refuge in these
almost inaccessible mountains, where the Waldenses still preserved the
religion of Christ in its primitive purity. They had hoped, in the
simplicity of their hearts, that there, far from the scene of conflict,
they would be permitted to worship God according to their consciences.
They were not dangerous persons—they were no chiefs of sects eager to
make proselytes—they were single-hearted people, seeking to please God
by living a pure and Christian life. It might have been expected that
their poverty, their innocence, their peaceful conduct, would have
sheltered them from any persecution; and, in fact, for a time they lived
unmolested. Unhappily for them, the Jesuits were watching them, and,
urged on by that persecuting spirit which led them to seek for victims
everywhere, were resolved to trouble them in their retreat, and, if
possible, to destroy them. Lainez, in 1560, despatched Possevin to Nice,
to Emmanuel Philebert, Duke of Savoy, to excite him to persecute those
heretic mountaineers. The Jesuit represented to the Duke that a Catholic
prince ought not, even though his own personal interest required it, to
tolerate that the heresy should establish itself in his dominions, and
that the mountains of Piedmont and the Alps, in particular, served for
a retreat to the sectaries of Luther and Calvin.[201] Possevin succeeded
in bringing the duke into his abominable views. Ferrier, the governor of
Pignerol, commenced a chase against these inoffensive people, who were
hunted from one retreat to another, and when taken, were mercilessly and
inhumanly consigned to the flames. Driven to despair they took up arms,
resolved hereafter to sell their lives at the dearest price. A body of
troops was sent against them. The General, the Sieur de la Trinité,
placed them at the disposal of Possevin, and the Pope’s nuncio conferred
upon him the powers with which he pretended to be invested.[202] The
Jesuit, forgetful of his sacerdotal calling, repressing every feeling of
humanity, put himself at the head of a chosen body of troops, and hunted
down these poor Christians as if they were wild beasts, putting every
one who fell into his hands to the sword. Then, when he was tired of the
work of slaughter, to procure for himself a sort of triumph, he brought
to Vercelli, in solemn procession, thirty-four of those unfortunates,
who, not having faith or strength enough to prefer martyrdom to apostasy,
publicly abjured their religion in the presence of the duke and the
Jesuit.[203] From that day till very lately, the house of Savoy has more
or less persecuted the Waldenses.
Our Protestant readers, we presume, have by this time learned what
malignant and unrelenting enemies of their religion the Jesuits have
always been. They must have learned that all the north of Europe, and
France itself, perhaps, would have become Protestant countries, had
it not been for the demoniacal arts and ill-employed activity of the
disciples of Loyola. They must, further, be aware that the Jesuits did
not obtain those results by honest means only, by force of argument,
or by active and earnest exertions, which would have at least entitled
them to the approbation and esteem of all Roman Catholics, but they had
recourse to perjury, to murder, to persecution, to cruelties of every
kind—to means, in short, involving the perversion of every principle of
morality, for which they at last came to be abhorred by every honest
person, even of their own persuasion. Lastly, it clearly appears, from
what we have related, that, while pretending to fight for the Roman
See, the Jesuits, in reality, fought for their own aggrandisement; that
they recognise no religion, but their interest; worship no God, but
their order. We must, finally, remind our readers that we have omitted
numberless other charges which are generally brought against them, which
we consider well founded, but which we cannot satisfactorily prove.
All that we have advanced we have proved, according to our promise,
by documents of unquestionable authenticity, and we shall continue to
observe this rule to the conclusion of our history.