CHAPTER XX.

1848-1852.

THE JESUITS IN AND AFTER 1848.

Before the Suppression, the Jesuits, with alternate vicissitudes,

possessed less or more influence in all Roman Catholic countries, in some

of which, at different epochs, they were all-powerful and domineering.

But since their re-establishment, their real effective power, it may be

said, is confined to the Italian peninsula. It was my unfortunate country

that, from the beginning of their restoration, more than any other part

of Europe, experienced the pernicious effects of their revival. As from

the first they had stood up as the natural enemy of the liberal party,

the sovereigns of the peninsula, who wished to reign despotically,

without granting any concession required by the times, countenanced and

protected the Jesuits in the most decided manner. Charles Felix had

delivered up Piedmont to them, and they had taken possession of it,

and governed it, as if they were its absolute masters. Even Charles

Albert was unable or unwilling to counteract their influence. In Modena

and Parma they possessed an equal authority; while in Naples their

dominion was still more tyrannical, inasmuch as it rested not only on

the support of the court, but also on the superstition and fanaticism

of the populace, the most blindly bigoted of all Italy. But the supreme

seat of their power, as may be easily conceived, was Rome—Rome, now in

perfect friendship with the fathers. Odescalchi, a Jesuit, was Cardinal

Vicar of Rome, the highest ecclesiastical authority in the world after

the Pope. The whole of the public administration was filled with persons

either belonging to the Society, or protected by them. Public education

was entirely in their own hands, or of those protected by them. The

nomination of every teacher or professor was submitted to the approval

of the bishop. Recommendation from the fathers was listened to as if

it were the orders of a superior; and few, if any, of the established

authorities dared to oppose them in any of their undertakings. Poor

Italy was in a lamentable condition. The different governments of Italy,

encouraged by the fathers in their tyrannical and intolerant policy, had

spread such dissatisfaction among the higher classes of society,[440]

that every other year attempts were made at a revolution, some of which

were in part successful, as those of 1821 and 1831. They were, however,

always crushed by the overwhelming forces of Austria, and only served to

increase the number of victims, and the cruelties of the governments,

inflexible in their despotic policy. Yet the population, driven to

despair, and preferring death to ignominy, were ready to shed their blood

to mend the wretched condition of the country. In the latter part of

Gregory XVI.’s reign, matters were brought to such a state, that every

moment was expected a new general outbreak throughout all Italy; the

consequences of which, from the exasperated state of the popular mind,

would have been incalculable. In these circumstances, Gregory XVI. died,

and Giovanni Mastai was, after only two days’ conclave, raised to the

pontifical chair. It was thought that the meekness of his character, the

purity of his life, his decided aversion to every act of tyranny, might

in part calm the exasperated state of the population of the Roman states,

the most oppressed of all the states of Italy, as well as the readiest

for a revolution; and the beginning of Pius IX.’s reign promised to the

unfortunate peninsula a new era. Fugitive and deceitful hope! Alas! the

new era is now such as to make the future generation curse the day that

Mastai ascended the throne!

However, a month after his elevation, Pius IX. granted an amnesty,

reformed some gross abuses, discarded the most obnoxious agents of the

past tyrannical government, and promised to reign according to just and

paternal laws. We extolled his clemency to the sky, and saw in him the

palladium of freedom; we celebrated his virtues in a thousand different

ways. The world was soon filled with the eulogiums of Pius, and for a

brief period Europe prostrated herself at the feet of the idol raised up

by our gratitude.

But while we were loud in the praises of Pius IX., hoping that he would

prove a reformer and a benefactor to Italy, the Jesuits, united with the

old despotic party, which recognised Austria for its chief, contrived,

by all sorts of means, to oppose his acts of benevolence, slandered

his person, abused his ministers, and openly conspired against him.

The Romans feared that he would meet with the fate of Ganganelli; and

those fears were not only expressed in all writings and in all pieces

of poetry, but when the Pope passed through the streets of Rome, the

Trasteverini shouted out, “Holy Father, _beware of the Jesuits_!” A very

significant fact, which shews the opinion in which the fathers are held

where they are best known.

The good understanding, however, which existed for some eighteen months

between the liberal party and the Pope, began to be shaken when the

Romans, tired of benisons and insignificant concessions, asked for

liberal organic laws, and wished, above all, to snatch from the hand

of the priests and monks their ill-gotten and ill-used authority,

extending to all branches of the administration, even to those most

inconsistent with their calling. It is well known that no office of any

importance in the Roman states was filled by a layman—even the general

of the army was a _Monsignore_. We wished for a radical reform on this

point. Unfortunately, at this time, Grazioli—a high-minded and tolerant

priest, the Pope’s confessor—died, and Pius fell into the hands of a

confessor devoted to the Jesuits, and from that moment his conduct became

hypocritical and deceitful, and afterwards cruel and inhuman. To the

Jesuits is certainly to be attributed the change in the politics of the

Pope. From the beginning, Pius had been displeased when he heard abuse

poured upon the Company; but his desire of popularity and applause had

modified the propensities of the priest, nay, of the narrow-minded,

bigoted chief of the priests. But now, divesting himself of the

borrowed character of a tolerant and liberal man, Pius returned to the

former error of all Popes, and would not listen to a word about reform

touching the priesthood. It was this inflexible opposition to our just

and reasonable desires, and not our petulance, which brought things to

extremities, and the Jesuits were even the apparent cause of the rupture.

Although the Romans were resolved to be no longer the vassals of the

priesthood, and were determined not to leave a vestige of authority in

civil matters to any churchman except the Pope, nevertheless, no injury,

no abuse, was offered to any secular priest or monk, with the exception

of the Jesuits. But against them there was raised a great commotion.

Publications of all sorts were daily poured into the streets of Rome

against the fathers; and along with the shout for Italy, was mingled the

cry, “Down with the Jesuits!”

Gioberti’s book, _Il Gesuita Moderno_, was in everybody’s hands, and when

that courageous priest came to Rome, the people shouted his name as that

of a benefactor; a guard of honour was stationed at his hotel, and almost

royal honours were rendered to him for having so unreservedly laid bare

the iniquities of the fathers.[441] All this irritated the Pope in the

highest degree. From the balcony of the Quirinal he reproached the Romans

with _slandering venerable ecclesiastics_; and when the news arrived that

the Neapolitans had expelled the Jesuits from their city, he issued a

proclamation, in which he threatened us, if we were tempted to imitate

them, _with his anger, and with the curse of God’s indignation, who would

launch His holy vengeance against the assailants of His anointed_.[442]

But the Papal protection was no longer sufficient to shelter the Jesuits

from public hatred. Pius IX. lost a great part of his popularity,

but could not save them. They were expelled from the whole of the

peninsula—not as a general revolutionary measure, since all other

religious communities lived unmolested, but as a manifestation of the

public opinion against the hateful descendants of Ignatius. The Pope’s

indignation at this sacrilegious act knew no bounds, and from that

instant he vowed an implacable and intense hatred against the liberals

of whatever nation.[443]

Not only did Pius now refuse to grant any new concession, but he

attempted to recall those which he had been forced to grant; and when

he saw that he could not effect his purpose, he fled to Gaeta, in the

hope that Rome and Italy would soon fall into a state of anarchy and

confusion, so that the great powers of Europe would be obliged to

interfere, and restore him to the throne as an absolute master. The

wisdom and moderation of the people again disappointed his hopes. Never

was Rome more true to her duty than during the absence of the Pope. For

a while, even the government was carried on in the name of a sovereign

who had abandoned the state, and who refused even to listen to three

deputations sent to Gaeta to come to some understanding. This exasperated

Pius still more than anything else. From Gaeta he poured forth his

curses on his subjects. And while he was giving these manifestations of

his paternal heart, the Jesuits and Cardinal Antonelli were laying the

plan of that infernal compact between the Court of Rome and almost all

the despots of Europe, for crushing and annihilating all seeds of civil

and religious liberty, and for murdering, with merciless ferocity, all

those who had shouted for reform, in the name and under the auspices

of Pius IX.; a just retribution, it should seem, for having trusted in

a priest, and thought him capable of being an honest and liberal man.

Monsignor de Falloux, a Jesuit, brother of the then all-powerful minister

of Louis Napoleon, was notoriously the soul of the negotiation, and it

was he who decided the court of Rome to accept the succour of the French.

The crusade undertaken against Rome, by four nations so different in

character, and having such opposite interests, as Austria and France,

Spain and Naples, was the signal of that fiery reaction against the

liberty of all nations which still rages, and which, we fear, will not

cease till another general outbreak shall teach the tyrants that it is

not always safe to try too severely the patience of the people.

Distressful consequences for the people followed the league. The Roman

states were first made to feel the rage of the allies. Louis Napoleon,

who, in 1831, had fought along with us to overturn the Papal throne, now

sent an army in support of the Pope. He thought (I expressed this opinion

in my _History of the Pontificate_, written two years ago) that priests

and peasants would assist him to grasp the imperial sceptre, and that

he could not better ingratiate himself with them, than by replacing the

Pope on the throne; an act which would also be very acceptable to the

other despots. In consequence, he hastened to send his troops to crush

the new republic. The French army landed at Civita Vecchia. The general

chosen to command it was worthy of the end proposed. Oudinot is the

type of Jesuitism: and Louis Napoleon himself has, more recently, given

him his desert. Hardly had he landed on our shores, when many of the

fathers (we here relate facts of which we ourselves were witnesses)—as

an envenomed brood, sprung by magic from the soil—put themselves in

communication with him. The very proclamation by which he announced the

landing of the army was a masterpiece of Jesuitical craft. According to

its tenor, every party might have considered the French expedition as

coming to its own support. Oudinot informed the first deputation sent by

the republican government to inquire about the motives of this unwelcome

visit, that the French came as its friends; but, some hours after, when

pressed by a second deputation to be more explicit, he at last confessed

that they came to replace the Pope on the throne.[444] It would be to

our glory, but not to the purpose, to describe the prodigies of valour

performed by our inexperienced volunteers, in contending for three months

with forty-five thousand of the best troops of Europe. We fought as only

citizens combat for home and liberty. Men and women were in the _mêlée_.

Neither wife nor mother attempted by tears and entreaties to stay her

husband or son, but with a blessing and a kiss sent him forth against the

enemy. O Rome! O my noble country! when I remember thy noble deeds, the

readiness with which thou didst sacrifice the noblest of thy children

to achieve thy liberty, hope lends me patience to endure the longing

and miseries of my exile! Thou canst not be long under the yoke of the

priests!

But our valour availed us nothing. Left alone, we could stand no longer.

Four nations were leagued against us, and not a friendly hand was

stretched forth to succour us. England must reproach herself for having

left us to contend, unaided and alone, against four Catholic powers,

combined together to re-establish the Pope, who is as much her enemy as

ours. She must now feel the consequences of her culpable indifference.

The result was—and this is of great importance for England—that at last,

masters of our destinies, the Austrians have established a military

port at Leghorn, the French one at Civita Vecchia. Englishmen are cut

down in broad day in the streets of Florence,[445] condemned to death by

an Inquisitorial tribunal at Rome,[446] imprisoned at Verona,[447] and

insulted and ill-treated throughout all Italy. An English ambassador sues

in vain for the friendly interference of the Pope in English affairs;

he is not listened to, and the newspapers of the peninsula, and of the

powers adverse to England, laugh at his discomfiture. But there is in the

looming a still darker and more serious prospect, threatening to punish

England for having abandoned the cause of civil and religious freedom.

Eighteen millions of Englishmen live, we will not say in perpetual

fear—they are too brave for that—but not without apprehension of seeing

their shores invaded by the same army which conquered Rome, and which

would carry with it the blessing and the good wishes of Pius IX.—God

forbid that it should also have the support of the most fanatical and

ignorant portion of the Irish Papists, led by priests and Jesuits. We

hope that this will not be the case; yet we must remind our readers, that

every time the French speak of a war with England, they count on the

Irish as their natural allies.

We are not of those who, possessed by the fixed idea that impending

dangers threaten the Protestant religion, believe and affirm that

Louis Napoleon will be ready, at the bidding of the Jesuits, to send

an expedition against heretic England. On the contrary, we think that,

having once possessed himself of the imperial diadem, and having firmly

established himself on the throne, through the instrumentality of the

priests, and by the magic power which he seems to possess, of making the

electoral urn yield exactly the amount of votes asked from it, he will

soon put a stop to the insolence of the clergy, which, we are sure,

will increase in the direct ratio of the services they are rendering to

the usurper, and of the favours he has lavished upon them. But at the

same time, we firmly believe that, should Napoleon, in order to give

employment to his troops, and to gratify the national animosity, attempt

to invade Great Britain, or should he succeed in landing his adventurous

battalions on the British shore, then, though England may not have to

lament the treachery of the fanatic Papists of Ireland, she must expect

to find in her bosom as many spies and allies of her enemy as she has

Jesuits on her soil. All this is the result of the indifference shewn

by England to the affairs of the peninsula. Had she interfered when the

Romans were bravely struggling for their liberties, the Pope and Louis

Napoleon would not have cemented with our blood their anomalous alliance,

and the before-mentioned disastrous results would have been averted with

less difficulties and sacrifices than are now required to check the

insolence of that monstrous coalition. And let no one affirm that England

could not have justly interfered with the internal policy of other

nations. What! shall then intervention only be lawful and commendable

when employed to oppress a nation awakened to a sense of its rights, and

to extinguish every spark of freedom and patriotism? Shall it only be

permitted to outrage humanity, and never to benefit it? And to apply the

rule to the case now in question, we ask, shall the ferocious bands of

Croats, and the degraded soldiers of Louis Napoleon, trample upon our

unfortunate country, and dispose of its destinies at their pleasure, and

England remain an indifferent spectatress of their atrocious proceedings?

These are considerations which we beg leave to submit to the meditation

not only of the statesmen of Great Britain, but also of every free and

enlightened English citizen.

To return to our narrative: the French entered Rome (3d July 1849), and

with them priests and Jesuits, who had concealed themselves, or assumed

different disguises (not unfrequently that of patriots), re-appeared,

to enjoy their triumph, and the groans of the unfortunate country.

Oudinot, covered with the blood of the brave Romans, hastened to Gaeta

to receive the Pope’s blessing and acknowledgment, and was hailed there

as an angel of deliverance. The vindictive priests rejoiced at the

recital of the slaughter of the flock committed to their paternal care,

and made the General repeat the names and the numbers of the victims.

Then, when the hero of St Pancrace[448] returned to Rome, the priests,

to enjoy a barbarous pleasure, ordered a solemn _Te Deum_ to be sung in

all the churches of the state; and those of the unfortunate Italians

whose sustenance and liberty were in the power of their relentless enemy,

were obliged to assist at the ceremony, and with their lips, at least,

thank the Almighty for the slaughter of their best friends and nearest

relations.[449] Blasphemous profanation! Then began that ceaseless

persecution which is still continued; and the priests gratified their

thirst for revenge by crowding the dungeons with victims, and by driving

thousands into exile in foreign lands.

I will not prolong the painful history of our miseries. I will not speak

of ruined families—of forlorn and wandering children. I will not dwell

upon the fate of the ten thousand captives taken by Papal sbirri and

French gens-d’armes, and who fill the prisons of the state. I will not

implore the reader’s compassion for the many victims who have been again

immured in the dungeons of the Inquisition, some of whom, for the last

three years, have never seen a friendly face or heard a compassionate

word. I will not point out the inhuman and hypocritical conduct of the

so-called Vicar of Jesus Christ, who, while speaking with devout emotion

of his clemency, his paternal heart, and the mercies of the Christian

religion, has not granted a single pardon, dried a single tear, shortened

for a single day the torments to which he has condemned thousands of his

subjects. I shall only give an account of the wholesale execution which,

in the last month, took place at Sinigallia and Ancona, and which has

filled Italy and Europe with horror and amazement. As the Jesuits are

notoriously the soul and spirit of Popery, and are at the present moment

the recognised advisers and ministers of the Court at Rome, this short

narrative will not, we hope, be considered extraneous to our subject.

Those who, in times of calm and tranquillity, judge of events that

occur in epochs of commotion and revolution, when the passions of men

are excited to the highest paroxysm, and the voice of reason imposes

a feebler restraint upon their actions, leaving them little liberty

to judge of the character of their actions, are apt to commit serious

injustice; for they are too prone to brand as criminal, and deserving

the highest reprobation, deeds which, although culpable in themselves,

were yet committed under the impulse of heroism and devotedness. We do

not intend by this to approve or countenance crime, no matter under what

pretext it may have been committed. But assuredly there are circumstances

that ought to be taken into account which might render it, if not

excusable, at least less heinous and worthy of reprobation; and whoever

would form a just judgment in such cases, will never lose sight of these

considerations.

The first two years of Pius IX.’s pontificate are remarkably

characteristic of the nobleness and generosity of the liberal party.

Though the liberals had been, for the thirty years previous, so cruelly

and mercilessly treated, and though they were now the dominant party

in the state, they cannot be reproached with having offered an insult

to their late oppressors, nor with a single act of revenge. But it is,

unfortunately, true that, latterly, when the Pope had fled to Gaeta for

the very purpose of exciting civil war, when the priests were plotting

against the republic, calling in strangers to their aid, and menacing

us with foreign invasion, many political assassinations were committed

in Ancona and Sinigallia. This cannot be denied or palliated; only it

is to be remarked, that the crimes were confined to these two towns—the

latter the Pope’s birthplace; and both places being the residence of

his family, relations, and friends, a suspicion naturally arose in the

minds of many that these crimes were committed by persons misled by the

advice of some hidden Jesuits and partisans of the Pope, whose endeavour

it was to bring matters to the worst. The suspicion acquired strength

from the circumstance, that nobody belonging to the Mastai family was

injured. Although, as we have already reported, we were witness of the

fact that those who, during the late commotion in Rome, proposed the most

energetic and revolutionary measures, were, in the end, discovered to be

the agents or the tools of the Jesuits, nevertheless we would not like

to affirm that the political murders committed at Sinigallia were due to

the perfidious instigation of the priests. We do not like to believe in

the reality of such hellish perfidy; yet why had Sinigallia and Ancona

the sad preference of seeing their streets stained with fraternal blood?

Were there not exasperated minds also in other places? Had no other

populations of the state good grounds for calling to a strict and severe

account the agents and supporters of the past tyrannical government? Why,

we repeat, was the sad pre-eminence in guilt assigned to the native town

of the Pope?

However it were, after the Papal restoration, about 150 individuals were

thrown into prison, accused of being the accomplices or the abettors of

these crimes. Some of the accused, perhaps the guilty, were never taken,

having fled from the country. About eighty were condemned to the galleys

for life, the remainder to death.[450] Forty of the unfortunates have

already been executed, and the rest will meet the same fate when the Pope

shall find executioners as clement and humane as himself;—the garrison of

Ancona having to a man refused to be any longer the accomplices of the

Papal revenge.

What is of more importance than all this, is to place before the eyes of

our readers and civilised Europe the manner in which political trials

are conducted in the Roman states, in order that they may be aware of

the justice, charity, and humanity which characterise the acts of him

who blasphemously calls himself a god upon earth, the representative of

Christ.

Whoever has the misfortune to incur the displeasure or the hatred of

his Holiness, his ministers, a policeman, a sbirro, the bishop, the

curate, a monk, or any other of such rabble, which form an integral part

of the biform Papal government, is thrown into a dungeon, helpless,

comfortless, alone, and during several months hears and sees nothing

else than the grating sound of the rusty bolts, and the inauspicious

face of his guardian, who comes to bring his miserable pittance of

food, and to ascertain that the victim cannot make his escape. After a

longer or shorter space of time, but never shorter than three or four

months, according to the hatred or fear the prisoner has inspired, or

the interest possessed by his friends without, he is brought before

a _cancelliere o giudice processante_, a sort of scribe, by whom he

is interrogated.[451] In that examination all the care of the man

of police—we cannot call him a magistrate—is directed to elicit from

the victim a confession of his crime, or the name of his accomplices,

if he is supposed to have had any. Promises of liberty, favour, and

recompence, are held out to him as an inducement to dishonour or perjure

himself. These examinations are repeated every three or four months;

and when at last the man of the law has, after some years, obtained

what he wished, or despairs of obtaining it, the process is announced

to be closed, and the judgment is going to be delivered. Then, and

not till then, the accused may confer with a legal adviser, generally

assigned to him, _ex officio_, by the tribunal; and some little space

of time is granted to him to prepare his defence. But how can he defend

himself? He knows neither the names of his accusers nor of the witnesses

who have made the accusation good. He is not allowed to confront and

cross-examine them. Even his answers to the different questions put to

him by the _cancelliere_ are noted down, not as actually given by him,

but as it was desired that they should be given, in order that he may

appear a criminal, the only result which the judges wish to obtain.

When the advocate has delivered his defence, the secret tribunal pass

judgment without even seeing the face of the prisoner; and this judgment

is without appeal. Such is the general practice observed in political

trials. Robbers are a little better treated. In the peculiar case which

we are considering, we have to add, that, as far as has transpired,

all the witnesses who were called to give evidence against the accused

belonged to the adverse party—the party of the Jesuits, thirsting for

revenge, and eager to shew their devotion to the sect. It may be easily

understood that those witnesses were not very scrupulous as to the

charges they brought against the accused, being assured, as they were,

that their names would never be made public, and that they would not be

confronted with the prisoner, nor be cross-examined by anybody.

And nevertheless, it was upon such testimony that the tribunal of

the _Consulta_, composed of cardinals and prelates, condemned sixty

unfortunate young men to suffer the last punishment of the law. We must

further observe that, had those men who composed the tribunal, which

they call SACRED, been judges, and not persecutors, had they had any

sentiment of humanity in passing the sentence, even though the crime had

been proved, they would have borne in mind the time and the motives which

led the culprits to commit the murder, and would not have added another

red page to the annals of their Church, already overcharged with innocent

blood.[452]

Sinigallia, in which the executions were the most numerous, had not

yet recovered from the horror inspired by such a bloody tragedy, and

had not dried its tears for the cruel fate of its butchered citizens,

and especially for the innocent and unfortunate Simoncelli,[453] when,

to complete its miseries and insult its grief, there appeared a Papal

ordinance, granting to the Jesuits £40,000 sterling to erect a college in

the desolate city. Ah! so they reign in the Papal states!

When the Jesuits re-entered Naples in 1849, the superior held a sort

of levee, when the generals of the army, the first magistrates of the

kingdom, and all the civil and military authorities, went to pay their

respects to those very humble monks. The addresses which were delivered

on the occasion in praise of these men of Providence, these messengers of

God, these restorers of all moral and sainted institutions, were, from

their hyperbolical style, amusing in the extreme; and it is curious to

find that some of them were repeated almost literally (plagiarism seems

to become very fashionable now-a-days) by some bishops to Louis Napoleon,

the saviour of society, the man of Providence, the pearl of chastity and

virtue—just as was done to the fathers themselves.

If in Rome the Jesuits must shew deference to the chair of St Peter, in

Naples they are masters of the situation. St Ignatius has superseded

even St Januarius, and both have almost obliterated the name of Christ.

The superstition and bigotry of that part of the peninsula exclusively

under the sway of the Jesuits is almost incredible; and the government,

conducted on those principles, has reached the highest point of

immorality and corruption, and is held up by every honest person, no

matter of what party, to the execration and contempt of Europe; while, to

leave no doubt as to the influence which predominates there, the Pope,

the Jesuits, and the priests, their abettors, represent Ferdinand II. as

a model of Christian perfection, and the kingdom of the two Sicilies as

the best governed in the world; the Roman states being of course excepted.

Unfortunately, the wretched Neapolitans, and the noblest and best

amongst them, have to pay with their liberties and their lives for the

eulogium awarded by the Jesuits to the merciless Bourbon. The policy

of the Neapolitan governments is a disgrace to civilisation. A band of

ruffians, under the name of police or government, seize upon all persons

who have had the misfortune to displease them; their victims are thrown

into prison, and are accused of imaginary crimes; while the accusers,

changing themselves into witnesses, often into judges, in order to make

good the charge, keep them chained for three or four years in Ischia,

as in the case of Poerio and Dragonetti, and finally pass a sentence of

death upon them, in order to give the pious and clement Ferdinand and

his Jesuit confessor the merit of having commuted the infamous sentence

into a horrid and perpetual imprisonment; and to all this complication of

iniquities they give the name of a state trial. Such is the Neapolitan

government under the conduct of the sons of Loyola.

But the malignant spirit of the Jesuits, in breaking forth from Naples

and Rome, has lately made an inroad into a province which, till then, had

been spared its pernicious influence. Among all the other provinces of

Italy, Tuscany had been favoured with a comparatively just and tolerant

government; and this, it was openly asserted, was owing to the absence

of the Jesuits from the country. Now, whoever has followed the march of

events there, must have been struck by the wide difference that exists

between the former policy of the government and the new one introduced

after Leopold II. had been some time at Gaeta, under the influence

of Antonelli and the Jesuits. From that moment all things changed in

Tuscany. The priests re-acquired an influence which they had never

possessed since the time of Leopold I., and made it subservient to their

unworthy ends. Madonnas became again miraculous. Feasts and processions

were got up with the greatest pomp, and were numerously attended by all

those who had anything to hope or fear from the government. A furious

war was declared against all doctrines but those harmonising with the

strictest ultra-Popish principles. Books and newspapers were interdicted,

and no efforts were spared to bring the enlightened, lively, and

intellectual people of Tuscany to limit their literary pursuits to the

perfect knowledge of the Catechisms.

The influence of the too notorious Bocella, by his own confession a

Jesuit, was, above all, fatal to the country. While he was the chief

adviser of the Grand Duke, the Grand Duchess went in procession to

worship a miraculous Madonna at Rimini, and Leopold himself ordered

a sumptuous and extraordinary feast for another Madonna in Florence,

to whose church he repaired in state. But at the same time, the most

respectable citizens of Florence, Count Guicciardini and others, were

prosecuted and exiled for the heinous crime of reading the Bible;

and two unfortunate and inoffensive creatures—the Madiais—have been

condemned to the punishment of malefactors (hard labour), for having in

their possession the sacred volume, and for discussing and endeavouring

to prove its veracity. Later still, an ordinance of the Grand Duke

re-establishes capital punishment, which had long since been abolished;

while another ordinance of the minister of police expels from the

hospitable soil of Tuscany hundreds of unfortunate Italians, who had

sought there a refuge against the ferocious and relentless persecution of

the Roman Court. Such are the effects of the influence of the Jesuits.

What will become of Lombardy, already so wretched, now that Austria has

decided on re-establishing the Jesuits there on an extended scale, it is

disheartening to contemplate; while, on the other hand, it is cheering

in the extreme for an Italian, and for every true friend of civil and

religious liberty, to see the conduct of the Piedmontese government

towards the Jesuits and the priesthood.

The Jesuits, after their expulsion, were never permitted to re-enter

the kingdom, and the priests are now subjected, like other citizens,

to the laws of the land, and are obliged to submit to that equality

which they consider as a disgrace to their privileged caste. For it

must be borne in mind that the priest, and the conscientious one more

than others, considers himself a superior being, a man far above any

layman, even though he were a king. He imbibes this idea from childhood,

when he begins to dress in a peculiar garb, and is accosted by a

respectful appellation. According to the canonical law (and in Italy

that law is universally respected and strictly enforced, except, indeed,

in Piedmont), the moment an infant assumes the garb of a priest, and

receives the first order (tonsura), he is no more subject to the civil

authorities; he is henceforth only amenable to the ecclesiastical court,

and whoever strikes him, incurs _de facto_ excommunication. After he

has been consecrated priest, he pretends, or in reality believes, that

it is in his power to oblige the Almighty to descend from heaven into

his hands, and that at his bidding the flesh and blood of the Divine

Redeemer is transubstantiated into bread and wine, and in that form goes

to sanctify his breast. Again, he believes, or feigns to believe, that it

rests with him to open or shut the gates of heaven, and that he has the

power of bestowing everlasting beatitude or dooming to eternal damnation,

according as he absolves from sin or refuses absolution. In fact, he puts

himself in the place of God, of whom he calls himself the Anointed, and

whose name he often usurps. When we consider all this, we do not wonder

that the priests cannot endure equality of rights with other citizens. We

are rather astonished that serious and enlightened people of this country

can for a moment entertain the idea that the Irish Roman Catholic priests

are sincere when they ask for equality of rights. Look to Piedmont;

there the Romish priesthood enjoy this equality—nay, more than equality.

Their religion is acknowledged to be the religion of the state; and

many are the writers who have lately been condemned for disparaging

it. They possess, also, some other less considerable privileges over

the other citizens; and yet they are far from being satisfied. On the

contrary, they accuse the government of tyranny. The bishops are in open

rebellion against the sovereign; priests and curates oppose the laws of

the country. The pulpit, the confessional, are made subservient to their

hatred of the new state of things; and all this because the legislature

attempts, not to deprive them of any right, or subject them to any

incapacity, but to introduce equality, and to subject ecclesiastics

of all sorts to the common law. The rage of the priesthood at this

sacrilegious audacity on the part of the parliament, in seeking to

assimilate them to other men, is such, that they have launched a solemn

act of excommunication against all those who shall read the newspapers

advocating such infamous measures. The Jesuits are at the bottom of all

this, and their intrigues brought Piedmont but the other day to the brink

of ruin. Fortunately, public opinion declared itself so strongly, and the

king shewed such firmness, that their machinations proved abortive. It

must be remarked in all this, that when the liberal newspapers reproach

the clerical party with their acts or words, they always stigmatise them

with the name of Jesuits—so universally is the abhorred name coupled with

all that is bad, cunning, and criminal!

Appalling and ominous of incalculable consequences is the influence

which the Jesuits have acquired in France—in that country which has

prostrated all its past glory and its dignity as a nation, at the feet

of an unscrupulous, merciless tyrant; endeavouring, at the same time,

to forget its ignominy in the intoxication of feasts and champaigne.

The Jesuits and priests are the firmest supporters of Louis Napoleon;

and it is worthy of remark, that the bishops who are known for their

ultramontane principles and their adherence to the Jesuitical discipline

are those who lavish the highest eulogiums on the unprincipled usurper.

This affords us another instance of the worldly spirit of the Popish

clergy, and may be a salutary lesson for the future. For our own part,

indeed, we are inclined to recognise in it the hand of Providence

consummating the speedy downfall of the Popish religion. The conduct of

Pius IX. has already extinguished in Italy the last lingering sentiments

of respect and devotion towards the Papal religion. The Italians had

hopes for a moment that Pius would reconcile them to the religion of

their forefathers, by shewing that it is not a religion of blood and

persecution, but of love and brotherhood, eminently liberal and national.

They had hoped that Popery, to which Italy owes all its misfortunes,

would now change, and restore to it part of its former glory. And this

idea prevented them from renouncing altogether religion such as it is

preached to them. But now that no doubt remains as to the true spirit

of Popery, now that no one can reasonably entertain the least hope

that it will ever change from what it has been—an institution founded

on superstition, cemented with blood, and maintained by the axe of the

executioner—now that the last testing experiment has shewn to all the

world its utter helplessness against free physical force, it may be truly

said that Popery has been irrevocably doomed in Italy. It may linger

yet a while by the aid of despotic bayonets, but never again will the

Italians, of their own free will, repose their faith in the religion of

the Popes.

In precisely a similar manner are the priests and Jesuits now giving the

last blow to the Popish religion in France. Let the present transient

moment of delirium pass over, and the French nation will reconsider the

servile and ignominious part played by the clergy in the recent immoral

saturnalia. It will remember that the man who had perjured himself—who

had caused thousands of citizens to be butchered because they were

faithful to the laws—who had been a traitor to all governments from

his youth—who had never kept his word—who had been distinguished for

immorality and debauchery even among the unscrupulous _lions_ of London

and Paris—that this man was exalted by the surpliced emissaries of Rome

as the _man of Providence_, _the messenger of God_, _the restorer of

morality and religion_, _and the benefactor of humanity_. Who, need it

be asked, will once again believe them, when speaking of the things of

heaven, after they have lied so impudently and deliberately in speaking

of the things of this world? But till a reaction take place, the Jesuits

triumph in France.

As we have had occasion to speak incidentally, in various parts of this

work, of the arts and practices employed at the present moment by the

Jesuits against England, and as our readers have daily so many means

of ascertaining the manners of the fathers in the public prints, we do

not think it necessary to add anything more in this place. We have also

little to say about the actual missions of the Jesuits in both Indies.

They are neither prosperous nor important, and are only distinguished

by their intrigues and by the war which they keep up against all other

missionaries, whether Popish or Protestant. The actual wealth of the

Jesuits, though considerable, is far from approaching the fabulous amount

it possessed before the suppression. If our information and calculation

are correct, and we believe they are, the total number of the members _to

be found on the register of the Order_ amounts to nearly six thousand—an

enormous increase since 1814, and such, indeed, as to give to reflective

minds serious apprehensions. But we have nearly exhausted the space we

had allowed ourselves. We must pass to the conclusion.

CONCLUSION.

We are now at the end of our labours; but, before parting with our

readers, we would briefly call their attention to some of the chief

points in our History. If we mistake not, the perusal of our narrative,

imperfect as it may be, will convince even an indifferently attentive

reader that Loyola had but one end in view—one fixed idea—namely, to

establish an order which should domineer over society; and that his

successors have been arrested by no scruples as to the means to be

employed for obtaining this end. With the exception of this fixed rule,

to which the Jesuits have adhered with undeviating constancy, it may be

asserted that they have no principle whatever. The dogmas of their creed,

the precepts of their moral code, their political principles, all these

they have changed or modified according to places and circumstances. They

have been against or in favour of the Roman See, according as it served

or injured the interests of the order. They have proclaimed the unlimited

sovereignty of the people, and have been instrumental in bringing many

unfortunate persons to the scaffold, for resisting the tyrannical power

of absolute monarchs. To accomplish their ends, they have all along

thought that money would be the most efficient instrument; hence their

insatiable desire of wealth, to accumulate which, they violated all laws,

divine and human. The riches got by illicit means have been ever expended

for still more culpable purposes. A Jesuit does not desire or spend money

for his own personal self; he is frugal in his habits, and parsimonious

in expenditure as far as regards mere comforts; but he is no miser. He

does not hide his treasures in the bowels of the earth, but spends them

freely to increase the influence and power of his order. The secret agent

of the Society is handsomely rewarded; the spy liberally paid. Ministers

of different sovereigns are bought over by princely largesses; and even

the ruling beauties of courts are bribed to serve the order with costly

and suitable presents.

The fathers were also persuaded, from the beginning, that it would

greatly contribute to the grandeur and power of the order to insinuate

themselves into the susceptible minds of the young, and they left nothing

untried by which this might be effected. Other schemes—the conversion of

heretics, the missions, the outward exercise of many of the Christian

virtues—were all directed to the attainment of the same identical end—the

aggrandisement of the order.

Two other principal facts are deserving of attention. The first

is, that, from the beginning, the establishment of the Society was

everywhere opposed, and in all places where it was finally admitted,

it was subsequently, at different epochs, persecuted, and convicted of

iniquitous and abominable crimes. The second fact is, that the Society

of Jesus, though it may at times have disregarded its rules of internal

policy, has nevertheless maintained its general primitive character;

namely, its relentless domineering spirit, and the abnegation of every

personal feeling in favour of the community. The Jesuits of the present

day, unlike all other religious fraternities, which have invariably

undergone so many modifications, are exactly the same as they were

in Loyola’s lifetime. Founded by that bold, despotic, and ambitious

man, it seems as if his spirit had transmitted itself into the whole

Society, and presided over all its acts. The Company, so to speak, has

perpetuated the life of Loyola. If we would personify the order, we

might represent it, after his likeness, as an apparently humble and

sainted man, deeply absorbed in the contemplation of heavenly things,

while in reality revolving in his capacious and daring mind projects of

unbounded ambition. There is no record in history of an association whose

organisation has stood for three hundred years unchanged and unaltered by

all the assaults of men and time, and which has exercised such an immense

influence over the destinies of mankind.

This perseverance of the order in its principles and policy is comparable

to nothing except the corresponding constancy of the world in the

opinion which it formed of the Society at its commencement, and which

it still retains. “The moment,” says an author of the beginning of the

seventeenth century, “a great crime is committed, the public voice at

once and unanimously accuses the Jesuits of being its perpetrators.” And

the same sentiments with regard to them prevail to this day. In former

times, indeed, that opinion was so strongly and universally received,

that our forefathers, less scrupulous than we are in the administration

of justice, at the simple announcement of a misdeed, brought the Jesuit

before the tribunal, and sometimes unjustly condemned him for crimes

of which he was guiltless. Do, then, the Jesuits, from the habit of

committing crimes, bear on their countenances the indications of a

criminal and wicked disposition, as is commonly the case with ruffians by

procession? Or do they, by public and open misdemeanours, give the world

a right to form this judgment of them? By no means. We have already said

the reverse. They appear, on the contrary, to conduct themselves as the

most innocent, most inoffensive, and holy of men; and, indeed, unless

one has been present at the representation of Tartuffe, he would not

easily recognise the Jesuit from the undisguisedly honest man. However,

we would not be so illiberal as to say that all the Jesuits are knaves.

Our lamented friend Gioberti, when Father Pellico said to him, “Are we,

then, all assassins and robbers?” answered, “By no means. Individually,

I consider you very honest fellows, and had I treasure, I would

unhesitatingly intrust it to your keeping.” We would not perhaps go quite

so far; but we will freely admit that the Jesuit may be individually

honest, unless the interest of his order obliges him to be otherwise. For

there are no considerations of religion, honesty, or virtue, which he

does not feel himself bound peremptorily and at all times to sacrifice to

this one supreme consideration. “The end sanctifies the means,” is his

favourite maxim; and as his only end, as we have shewn, is the order, at

its bidding the Jesuit is ready to commit any crime whatsoever.

Such, then, is the history of a Society dreaded and relied upon,

worshipped and abhorred, which has produced little good, and infinite

mischief, and which, having been hurled down from the pinnacle of

splendour and glory, attempts now, with renewed vigour and unceasing

activity, to regain the summit of its ancient pre-eminence. An appalling

prospect, foreboding no good to the welfare of mankind! One cheering

idea, however, still remains to dissipate the evil apprehension. The

Jesuits, now more decidedly than ever, have identified themselves with

the cause of despotism, fanaticism, and ignorance; and the day on which

the tottering thrones of tyranny shall crumble under the mighty and

resistless arm of progressive civilisation, they will bury deep and for

ever under their ruins all traces of the influence once possessed by this

most formidable and pernicious Society.

THE END.

FOOTNOTES

[1] _History of the Council of Trent_, by Fra Paolo Sarpi, tome i. p. 9.

[2] Helyot, _Histoire des Ordres Monastiques, Religieux et Militaires_,

tome vii. p. 452. When we have modern Catholic authors who quote from

Sacchinus Orlandinus, &c., we shall quote them, as books more easily to

be had.

[3] Helyot, _Hist. des Ord. Mon., Rel. et Mil._, tome vii. p. 456.

[4] Ibid. p. 459.

[5] By the term “Spiritual Exercises,” Catholics understand that course

of solitary prayer and religious meditation, generally extending over

many days, which candidates for holy orders have to perform in the

seclusion of a convent previous to being consecrated. Again, when a

priest incurs the displeasure of his superior, he is sent as a sort of

prisoner to some convent, there to perform certain prescribed “spiritual

exercises,” which in this case may last from one to three weeks.

[6] The Italics here are our own.

[7] The Italics here are our own.

[8] Stephens.

[9] See the Shorter Catechism, Qu. 1.

[10] Hel. _Hist. des Ord. Mon., Rel. et Mil._ tome vii. p. 461.

[11] Hel. _Hist. des Ord. Mon., Rel. et Mil._ tome vii. p. 463.

[12] Ibid. tome vii. p. 464.

[13] Once for all, I promise my readers that I am not going to trouble

them with the narrative of all the miraculous legends related concerning

Loyola. They are in most instances so absurd as to be beneath the dignity

of history. Let the two following suffice as specimens. It is said that

the devil, determined to prevent his learning Latin, so confused his

intellect that he found it impossible to remember the conjugation of the

verb _amo_; whereupon he scourged himself unmercifully every day, until

by that means the evil spirit was overcome, after which the saint was

soon able to repeat _amo_ in all its tenses. Again, when Ignatius was in

Venice on his way to the Holy Land, it is said that a wealthy senator of

that city, Travisini by name, whilst luxuriously reclining on his bed of

down, was informed by an angel that the servant of God was lying upon

the hard stones under the portico of his palace. Whereupon the senator

immediately arose, and went to the door, where he found Ignatius.

[14] Negroni expounds the word _societas_ “quasi dicas cohortem aut

centuriam quæ ad pugnam cum hostibus spiritualibus conserendam conscripta

est.”

[15] Hel. _Hist. des Ord. Mon., Rel. et Mil._ tome vii. p. 469.

[16] Fra Paolo Sarpi, _History of the Council of Trent_, p. 118.

[17] These famous Constitutions were composed by Loyola in the Spanish

language. They were not at first the perfect system we now find them;

and it was not till about the year 1552 that, after many alterations and

improvements adapting them to the necessities of the times, they assumed

their ultimate form. They were translated into Latin by the Jesuit

Polancus, and printed in the college of the Society at Rome in 1558. They

were jealously kept secret, the greater part of the Jesuits themselves

knowing only extracts from them. They were never produced to the light

until 1761, when they were published by order of the French parliament,

in the famous process of Father Lavallette.

[18] We beg to explain the sense in which we use the word _Catholic_. We

don’t mean that the Christians of the Roman persuasion have an exclusive

right to it. We only maintain to them the current denomination, as all

other historians do, to prevent confusion.

[19] _History of the Council of Trent_, by Paolo Sarpi, tome i. p. 47.

[20] _Const. Socie. Jesu_, pars i. cap i. § 3.

[21] _Const._ pars i. cap. ii. § 1.

[22] _Const._ pars i. cap. iv. § 6.

[23] _Const._ pars iii. cap. i. § 12.

[24] _Const._ pars iv. cap. x. § 5.

[25] _Const._ pars iii. cap. i. § 23.

[26] _Const._ pars vi. cap. i. § 1.

[27] _Const._ pars vi. cap. v. § 1.

[28] _Examen_, iv. § 11; and _Const._ pars iii. cap. i. § 7-9.

[29] After his entrance into the house of first probation, the Jesuit is

not allowed either to receive or send away any letter which has not been

previously read by his superior.

[30] _Const._ pars iii. cap. i. § 2, 3.

[31] Let not any English reader accuse me of inaccuracy on this point,

upon the ground that Jesuits actually walk about the streets in this

country _singly_, or even in disguise. They must take notice that every

rule of the Constitution contains this clause—“Except the General order

otherwise, for the greater glory of God, and the benefit of the Society.”

Is it not “for the greater glory of God, and the benefit of the Society,”

that the Jesuit, to escape suspicion, should go alone?—that he should be

introduced into your family circle as a Protestant gentleman?—that he

should, to gain your unsuspecting confidence, enact the part of your gay

companion at theatres, concerts, and balls?—that he should converse with

you upon religious matters, beginning always by cursing the Pope, &c.?

[32] _Const._ pars iii. cap. i, § 18.

[33] _Const._ pars i. cap. ii. § 13.

[34] Ibid. pars i. cap. iii. § 3-16.

[35] _Const._ pars v. cap. ii. § 7, 8.

[36] Ibid. pars iv. cap. xvi. § 3.

[37] _Const._ pars iv. cap. i. § 1, 6.

[38] _Const._ pars ii. cap. iii. § 5, 6, 8.

[39] In most monasteries, and more particularly in those of the Capuchins

and Reformed (_Riformati_), there begins at Christmas a series of

feasts, which continues till Lent. All sorts of games are played, the

most splendid banquets are given, and in the small towns, above all, the

refectory of the convent is the best place of amusement for the greater

number of the inhabitants. At carnivals, two or three very magnificent

entertainments take place, the board so profusely spread that one might

imagine that Copia had here poured forth the whole contents of her horn.

It must be remembered that these two orders live by alms. The sombre

silence of the cloister is replaced by a confused sound of merrymaking,

and its gloomy vaults now echo with other songs than those of the

Psalmist. A ball enlivens and terminates the feast; and, to render it

still more animated, and perhaps to shew how completely their vow of

chastity has eradicated all their carnal appetite, some of the young

monks appear coquettishly dressed in the garb of the fair sex, and begin

the dance along with others transformed into gay cavaliers. To describe

the scandalous scene which ensues would be but to disgust my readers.

I will only say that I have myself often been a spectator at such

saturnalia.

[40] _A Vincenzo Gioberti Fra Pellico della Compagnia di Gesù_, pp. 35,

36.

[41] _Examen_, iv. § 10-15.

[42] _Examen_, iv. § 17.

[43] _Const._ Pars v. cap. iv. § 4.

[44] _Const._ Pars v. cap. iv. § 2.

[45] _Const._ Pars ix. cap. iii. § 9.

[46] _Const._ Pars v. cap. iii. § 2-4.

[47] _Const._ Pars ix. cap. v. § 5.

[48] See my _History of the Pontificate of Pius IX._, p. 3.

[49] _Const._ Pars viii. cap. vi. § 6.

[50] _Const._ Pars ix. cap. iv. § 7.

[51] _Const._ Pars ix. cap. iii. § 14-19.

[52] Maffei, _Vita Ign._ p. 90.

[53] Maffei, _Vita Ign._ p. 90.

[54] _Bromato Vita di Paolo IV._ lib. vii. § 3.

[55] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 189. English translation.

[56] _Crétineau_, vol. i. p. 134.

[57] _Orland._ lib. iii. 48; _Crét._ vol. i. p. 134.

[58] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 136.

[59] Cumulatam peccatorum indulgentiam tribuebant.—_Orland._ lib. iii.

sec. 59.

[60] Exceptiones immunitatesque, aut plane gratuitas aut ære permodico

tenuoribus indugebant, &c.—_Ibid._ and _Crét._ vol. i. p. 140.

[61] _Steinmetz_, vol. i. p. 308.

[62] _Orl._ lib. iii. 60; _Crét._ vol. i. p. 141.

[63] _Helyot_, vol. vii. p. 491.

[64] _Helyot_, vol. vii. p. 491.

[65] _Const._ pars vi. cap. iii. § 7. To be a nun’s confessor was, and

is still, deemed a high privilege. Before the Council of Trent, this

privilege belonged to the order of St Francis, under whose rules most of

the nuns also live. The conduct of these brothers and sisters was in the

highest degree improper and scandalous. Although the Franciscans are now

no longer the titular confessors of these nuns, nevertheless they are

on the most friendly terms with one another; upon which friendships the

Italians exercise their satirical and sarcastic wit. The confessors are

now chosen by the respective bishops, who confer the honour upon their

most faithful adherents, as a reward for their services. The rivalries of

those sainted women, and their ingenious contrivances to engage the smile

of their holy father, are notorious to every one who lives near a convent.

[66] _Helyot_, vol. iii. p. 492.

[67] _Orl._ lib. viii. § 6.

[68] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 284.

[69] _Orlan._ lib. viii. p. 43.

[70] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 285.

[71] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 290.

[72] _Orland._ lib. viii. 10.

[73] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 299.

[74] _Ibid._ p. 292. As this author generally quotes Orlandini and the

other Jesuitical writers _verbatim_, we shall refer our readers to him,

as it can much more easily be procured, and we shall only quote from the

original when the translation is inaccurate.

[75] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 305.

[76] _Ibid._ p. 299.

[77] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 290.

[78] Our readers must not take the word parliament in the same

signification it has in England. The parliament of France was composed

of a body of magistrates, and formed the Supreme Court of Judicature,

in which the princes of the blood had a seat; and which was sometimes

presided over by the king. Every province had its parliament, but none

exercised the same influence with that of Paris.

[79] _Crét._ vol. i. p. 320.

[80] This Postel was a rabbin converted to Catholicism. He was very

learned, a graduate of the university, and held in high estimation by

Francis I. and all his court. In 1545 he went to Rome to enter the

Society of Gesù. This acquisition gave great joy to the Jesuits. Postel

was very kindly received, and much flattered. He then went through the

_Spiritual Exercises_; but this strange course of devotion affected his

fervid imagination so much, that his faculties became impaired. He began

to propound strange doctrines—to propose new rules for the Society; and,

above all, would by no means obey the orders of Ignatius. Loyola having

no longer any hold upon him, dismissed him, for which act of firmness

Loyola’s panegyrist extols him to the skies.

[81] Crétineau, vol. i. p 334.

[82] Maffei, _Ignat. Vita_, p. 110.

[83] Idem, p. 109.

[84] Orland. lib. xiv. § 96, 97.

[85] The _Litteræ Annuæ Societatis Jesu_, from 1606 to 1614, fill eight

volumes in 8vo; the _Lettres Edifiantes_, twenty-one volumes in 8vo, and

so on.

[86] Bart. _Vita Ign._

[87] Bart. _Asia_, p. 31.

[88] For nearly two centuries, miracles and saints rarely occurred. It

seems as if they were in a state of embryo, slumbering until an opportune

season for their appearance should arrive. After the Reformation,

however, it was deemed expedient that some new miracles and saints should

come forth to prove the truth and the superiority of the Roman Catholic

religion over the Protestant, which cannot boast of such testimonials. It

was then that the images of the Virgin Mary again began to speak, laugh,

weep—that the hair of the images on the crucifix grew—that they shed

blood from their wooden sides—that the relics of saints acted as a charm

to keep away diseases and misfortunes—and that new saints sprang into

existence like mushrooms.

[89] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 231. English translation.

[90] Juvencius’ _Hist. Soc. Jesu_, pars v. tom. ii. lib. xviii.

[91] _Lettres Edifiantes_, tom. x. p. 324.

[92] Feringee was the name given by the Hindoos to the Portuguese.

[93] _Lettres Edif._ tom. xxi. p. 77.

[94] Idem, tom. x. pp. 243-245.

[95] _Lettres Edifiantes_, tom. xii. p. 107.

[96] Tom. xiii. p. 54.

[97] Tom. xiv. pp. 185, 186.

[98] _Letters on the State of Christianity in India_, p. 74. London, 1823.

[99] The Taly bears the image of the god Pollyar, supposed to preside

over nuptial ceremonies. This most indecent idol was attached to a cord

of 108 threads, and worn round their necks by the women ever after their

marriage, as a wedding-ring.

[100] Crét. vol. v. p. 47. The italics are our own.

[101] The ashes of the cows’ dung are consecrated to the goddess

Lakshini, and are supposed to cleanse from sin anybody to whom they

are applied. The missionaries laid these ashes upon the altar near the

crucifix (horrid to relate!) or the image of the Virgin, then consecrated

and distributed them in the shape of little balls among their converts.

This strange sort of Christians invoked a pagan divinity as often as

they applied the dung to the body. Thus, when they rub it on the head

or forehead, they say, _Neruchigurm netchada Shiven_—that is, may the

god Shiva be within my head; when they rub it on the breast, they say,

_Manu Rudren_—that is, may the god Rudren be in my breast; and so on.—See

_Mémoires Historiques_, tom. iii. pp. 29, 30. Lucca, 1745.

[102] Crét. vol. v. p. 47.

[103] Crét. vol. v. p. 50.

[104] Father Norbert was a Capuchin missionary in India, who presented

to Pope Benedict XIV. a book entitled, _Mémoires Historiques sur

les Missions des Indes Orientales_. The work is illustrated with

authentic documents. It was published with the approbation of all the

ecclesiastical authorities, and never contradicted. Still, we will not

quote Father Norbert as a proper authority, unless what he relates can be

corroborated by other proofs.

[105] _Mém. Hist._ tom. prim. p. 142.

[106] The decree of the Inquisition of 1706, and his own of 1707,

approving and confirming De Tournon’s decree.

[107] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 230. Eng. trans.

[108] _Ibid._

[109] Maigrot. We do not in the least wish to diminish the merit and

the good intention of these two prelates. We even believe that M. de

Tournon was an excellent man. We only wish to observe that both he and

Maigrot were Frenchmen; that very many of the French prelates always

evinced great enmity towards the Jesuits, and that this, perhaps, had

some influence in stimulating their zeal for the purity of the Christian

religion.

[110] “I, N., of the order N., or Society of Jesus, sent, designated as

a missionary, to the kingdom or province of N. in the East Indies, by

the Apostolic See, by my superiors, according to the powers granted to

them by the Apostolic See, obeying the precept of our Holy Lord Pope

Clement XII., in his Apostolic Letter, issued in the form of a brief,

on the 13th day of May 1739, enjoining all the missionaries in the said

missions to take an oath that they will faithfully observe the apostolic

determination concerning the Malabar rites, according to the tenor of the

Apostolic Letter in the form of a brief of the same our Holy Lord, dated

24th August 1734, and beginning _Compertum deploratumque_, well known to

me by my reading the whole of that brief, promise that I will obey fully

and faithfully, that I will observe it _exactly, entirely, absolutely,

and inviolably_, and that I will fulfil it _without any tergiversation_;

moreover, that I will instruct the Christians committed to my charge

according to the tenor of the said brief, as well in my preaching as in

my private ministrations, and especially the catechumens before they

shall be baptized; and unless they promise that they will observe the

said brief, with its determinations and prohibitions, that I will not

baptize them; further, that I shall take care, with all possible zeal and

diligence, that the ceremonies of the heathen be abolished, and these

rites practised and retained by the Christians which the Catholic Church

had piously decreed. But if at any time (which may God forbid!) I should

oppose (_that brief_), either in whole or in part, so often do I declare

and acknowledge myself subject to the penalties imposed by our Holy Lord,

whether in the decree or in the Apostolic Letter, as above, concerning

the taking of this oath, in like manner well known to me by reading the

whole thereof. Thus, touching the Holy Gospels, I promise, vow, and

swear, so may God help me, and these God’s Holy Gospels! Signed with my

own hand—N.”

[111] I choose to speak of the procession held in this town, because I

have there witnessed it myself.

[112] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 217. (Eng. trans.)

[113] The passage of Sacchini is most instructive upon this point.

“Lainez,” says he, “did not write a single word on the matter; on the

contrary, Bobadilla and Gorgodanuz did nothing else than issue pamphlet

upon pamphlet, but it always happened by the Divine will (_Divino tamen

consilio fiebat_), that their writings fell into the Vicar-General’s

hand. Sometimes they (Lainez’s enemies) imprudently dropped the writings

in the street, sometimes they negligently left them in their rooms

unlocked, at other times they were delivered up to Lainez by the very

persons to whom they were addressed.” In other words, Lainez, by the

most ignoble proceedings and abject espionage, made himself master of

his enemies’ writings; yet the Jesuit historian says “that it happened

_Divino consilio_.” I wonder he does not add, _ad majorem Dei gloriam_.

[114] Sacch. lib. i. § 86.

[115] The act of making the sign of the cross is very significant. It is

still the custom in Italy for the common people to do so on hearing of

some great and unwonted crime, or of some extraordinary event.

[116] Crét. vol. i. p. 369.

[117] Crét. vol. i. p. 369.

[118] Paul IV. had hardly expired, when the Romans, highly incensed at

the miseries caused by the war, and at the severities of the Inquisition,

rose in a body, and with execrations and curses pulled down the statue

which had been erected to him in the beginning of his Pontificate, broke

into the Inquisition, and destroyed every thing in it.

[119] Crét. vol. i. p. 386.

[120] Sacch. lib. ii. § 131.

[121] I may here repeat what I have already said in one or two of my

former publications. When we in 1848 took possession of the Convent of

La Minerva, the seat of the Inquisition in Rome, we found among other

things a packet of autograph letters, written by the priests of different

countries, revealing various confessions to the Inquisitor. And it was

a very curious thing that the first letter which fell into the hands of

Mr Montecchi, a secretary of State, was from the capuchin of the State

Prison, in which he was a prisoner a few years before. These letters,

which are now out of our reach, are, however, safe, and will, I hope, be

soon published.

[122] The Jesuits, in this circumstance, were again forbidden to leave

Spain, or to send any money out of the country.

[123] Sacch. lib. v. § 107-10.

[124] Lainez, among other exploits, attacked with great violence the

authority of the bishops, and would have had them to be mere tools in the

hands of the Pope. He maintained on another occasion that, “as the slave

possesses less authority than his master, in like manner the Council

could not undertake a reformation upon the matter, the _annates_ being

of Divine right.” Again, “as Jesus Christ has the power to dispense from

all sorts of laws, the Pope, his vicar, has the same authority, SINCE

THE JUDGE AND HIS LIEUTENANT HAVE THE SAME TRIBUNAL,” and other similar

blasphemies. See Fra Paolo Sarpi upon the Congregations, 20th October

1562, and 16th June 1563.

[125] See the whole letter in Crét. vol. i. p. 294.

[126] Ranke, _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 286.

[127] See Crét. vol. ii. pp. 25 and following.

[128] Sacchini in Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 80.

[129] Sacch. lib. ii. § 134.

[130] It is a remarkable fact that during the reign of the bigoted and

persecuting Mary, the Jesuits did not make their appearance in England.

Cardinal Pole, to whom they had made several applications to be permitted

to establish themselves in Great Britain, always refused his consent.

_Pole knew Loyola intimately._

[131] Crét. vol. i. p. 463.

[132] See the whole Bull in Crét. vol. ii. page 241.

[133] Crét. vol. ii. p. 269.

[134] Crét. vol. ii. p. 255.

[135] See Bartoli dell’ Ing. F. 101, 102, 104.

[136] Bartoli, _ibid._

[137] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 512. (Eng. trans.)

[138] Camden, A.D. 1580.

[139] It was secretly printed in Lady Stour’s house, and widely

circulated.—See Crét. vol. ii. p. 272.

[140] Crét. vol. ii. p. 266.

[141] “Robertus Parsonius et Edmundus Campionus facultatem impetrârunt,

a Gregorio XIII. in hæc verba. Petatur a summo Domino nostro explicatio

Bullæ Declaratoriæ per Pium V. contra Elizabetham et ei adhærentes,

quem Catholicis cupiunt intelligi hoc modo, ut obliget semper illam

et hæreticos, Catholicos vero nullo modo rebus sic stantibus, sed tum

demum quando publica ejusdem Bullæ executio fieri poterit. Has prædictas

gratias concessit summus Pontifex Padri Roberto Parsonio et Edmundo

Campionio, in Anglicam profecturis die 13 Aprilis 1580, præsente Padre

Oliverio Manarco assistente.”—Camden, p. 464.

[142] It is well known that this adventurer, whom the Pope had made his

chamberlain, when off the coast of Portugal with the fleet which had been

equipped for the invasion, was persuaded by king Sebastian to accompany

him in his enterprise against Morocco, where he perished along with the

imprudent monarch of Portugal.

[143] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 324. (Eng. trans.)

[144] _Ann. Litt._ 1583.

[145] Bart. dell. Ing. F. 117.

[146] Hume, chap. xl. (A.D. 1579).

[147] See De Thou, A.D. 1587.

[148] Hume, chap. xli. (A.D. 1580).

[149] Crét. vol. ii. p. 280.

[150] Camden in Hume, chap. xli. (A.D. 1584).

[151] _State Trials_, vol. i. pp. 103, 104.

[152] Camden and De Thou.

[153] “La misère et le désespoir lui inspirèrent la pensée d’exécuter

en réalité le crime imaginaire qu’il prétendait avoir médité avec les

Jésuites.”

[154] Crét. vol. ii. p. 302.

[155] 22 Eliz. c. ii.

[156] Hume’s _Hist. of Eng._ chap. xlii.

[157] Crét. vol. ii. p. 309.

[158] Pasquier, _Catéchisme des Jésuites_, lib. iii. ch. 16.

[159] See Crét. vol. ii. p. 79.

[160] Crét. vol. ii. p. 78.

[161] These are some of the numberless privileges that the Jesuits had

obtained from different Popes even within the first twenty-five years

of their establishment:—They had the privilege of having a private

chapel in every house or college, and to celebrate mass even in time of

interdict; of absolving from every censure even in cases reserved for the

Pope alone; of dispensing from religious vows, or from impediments to

marriage; of conferring academical degrees which entitled the graduate to

the honours and privileges conferred by the royal universities. They were

exempted from tithes and from all other ecclesiastical contributions;

and, above all, they were independent of the jurisdiction of the bishops.

[162] See Crét. vol. i. pp. 406, 407.

[163] Ibid.

[164] It is well known that in France the Roman Catholic clergymen are

divided into ultramontane and Gallican; that the latter, under Louis

Philippe, maintained their independence, and a sort of superiority; but

that, under the rule of the pantheist Louis Napoleon, the ultramontane

party, under the direction and patronage of the Jesuits, has obtained the

ascendancy, which they exercise with a domineering spirit, and which is

increasing every day.

[165] Father Maldonat propounded a doctrine, that no one remained in

purgatory longer than ten years; and this, in order to assure the princes

that, if the properties of monasteries or other benefices were given

to the Jesuits, there would be no fear of their ancestors, in general

the pious founders, roasting in purgatory—who knows how long?—if the

benefices were appropriated to other uses than those for which they were

intended.

[166] Crét. vol. ii. p. 388.

[167] Ibid. p. 392.

[168] This insurrection was called “the days of the barricades.”

[169] Crét. vol. ii, p. 414.

[170] This Council was so called because it was composed of sixteen

members, representing the sixteen quarters of Paris; and it possessed

the supreme authority _de facto_. In this council the Jesuits had the

greatest influence, and one of them was a member of it.

[171] Crét. vol. ii. p. 404.

[172] It is asserted in a memoir of the Seigneur de Schomberg, that

after the assassination of Guise, Sixtus, through his legate, suggested

to Henry III. to name one of the Pope’s nephews as his successor to the

throne of France. But we have too good an opinion of Sixtus’ sagacity to

believe him guilty of such an extravagant project.

[173] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 25.

[174] How Elizabeth deplored this unprincipled act! “Ah, what grief,”

she wrote to him after his apostasy, “and what regrets and what groans I

have felt in my soul at the sound of such tidings as Morlaut has related!

My God! is it possible that any human respect should efface the terror

which Divine fear threateneth! Can we ever, by arguments of reason,

expect a good consequence of actions so iniquitous? He who has supported

and preserved you in mercy, can you imagine that He will permit you to

advance unaided from on high to the greatest predicament? But it is

dangerous to do evil in the hope that good will follow from it.—Your very

faithful sister, Sire, after the old fashion—I have nothing to do with

the new one—ELIZABETH.”[175]

[175] Bibl. du Roi MSS. de Colbert, apud Capefique, N. 251.

[176] Mezarai, _Abrégé Chronologique_ in the year 1576.

[177] Crétineau pretends that Gregory XIII., the father of all

Christians, wishing rather to pacify than excite their passions, refused

to comply with their request. But Ranke affirms that his approbation

was given, and refers, as proof thereof, to a letter of Father Matthieu

himself to the Duke of Nerves, reported in the fourth volume of

_Capefique Réformé_.

[178] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 505.

[179] See, for the first part, Crét. vol. ii. p. 392. As he does not

quote the latter part, see for it Pasquier, or _Histoire Générale de la

Naissance et du Progrès de la Compagnie de Jésus_, vol. i. p. 180.

[180] Crét. vol. ii. p. 391.

[181] _Catéchisme des Jésuites_, lib. iii. ch. 2.

[182] Crét. vol. ii. p. 396.

[183] _Catéchisme des Jésuites_, lib. iii. ch. 6.

[184] Mezarai, _Abrégé Chronologique pour l’année 1594_. Henry was

naturally generous, as all gallant men are. The only revenge he took upon

the corpulent Duke of Mayenne, the chief of the League, and his rival for

the throne after the death of Cardinal de Bourbon, was to take him by the

arm, and whilst engaged in friendly conversation, walking at a very smart

pace two or three times round the garden. Henry smiled when he had walked

Mayenne fairly out of breath, and all the Duke’s injuries were forgotten.

[185] See De Thou, L’Etoile, and all the historians of the time.

[186] Mezarai, _Ab. Chr._ at the end of 1594.

[187] See Acts of the Parliament, or _D’Argentré Collect. Jud._ tom. ii.

p. 524.

[188] In one of these writings, speaking of Henry IV., the Jesuit

says:—“Shall we call him a Nero, a Sardanapalus of France, a fox of

Bearn?” and further on, he declares, that “the crown of France could and

ought to be transferred to another family; that Henry, although converted

to the Catholic faith, would be treated too leniently, if a monk’s crown

(tonsure) were given him in some convent to do penance; that if he cannot

be deposed without war, then (said he) let us make war, and if we cannot

make war, let him be killed.”—Crét. vol. ii. p. 435.

[189] See the whole of the inscription in the authors of the epoch, in

the _Recueil des Pièces touchant l’Histoire de la Compagnie de Jésu_.

Liège, 1716. A very instructive work.

[190] Sigismond, on the death of his father John, having proceeded

from Poland to Upsala for the ceremony of his coronation, the estates

peremptorily refused to render him homage, till he had solemnly sworn

that the Augsburg Confession should be inculcated everywhere, alone

and purely, whether in churches or schools. In this strait, the prince

applied to Malaspina, the Pope’s nuncio, to know whether in conscience

he could give such promise. The nuncio denied that he could. The king

thereupon addressed himself to the Jesuits in his train, and what the

nuncio had not dared, they took upon themselves to do. They declared

that, in consideration of the necessity, and of the manifest danger in

which the sovereign found himself, he might grant the heretics their

demands without offence to God.—Ranke, _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. ii. pp.

147, 8.

[191] See Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 411.

[192] Ranke’s _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. i. pp. 415-417.

[193] Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, vol. i. p. 411.

[194] Ibid. p. 426.

[195] Ranke, vol. i. p. 422.

[196] Ranke, vol. i. p. 487.

[197] Ranke, _Hist. of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 141.

[198] John, before his ascension to the throne, had been confined in

strict captivity by his brother Eric. His wife, a Polish princess, the

last descendant of the Jagellonica family, and an adherent of the Church

of Rome, shared his imprisonment; the sad and gloomy hours of which were

rendered less painful by the frequent visits of a Roman Catholic priest,

who shewed them the greatest sympathy. It seems that this made some

impression upon John, and rendered him favourable towards the Papists.

[199] Crét. vol. ii. p. 195.

[200] Ranke informs us that John, troubled by remorse for his brother’s

assassination, was very anxious to receive absolution;—as if the word of

a man could quiet the gnawings of conscience, that unsparing avenger of

crime!

[201] Crét. vol. i. p. 449.

[202] Ibid.

[203] This fact is reported by all the Jesuit historians. We, however,

have too good an opinion of the Waldenses not to suspect that the

Jesuits, in order to deceive and impose upon the populace, had mixed

among some few apostates a number of Roman Catholics who were willing to

appear converted heretics.

[204] See also Crét. vol. iv. pp. 200, 201.

[205] Crét. vol iv. pp. 221, 222.

[206] _Const._ pars iv. chap. vi. § iii.

[207] To ascertain whether every one goes to the confessional every

other Saturday, each boarder receives a card with his own name written

on it, which he must deliver to his confessor, who gives it back to the

rector. I may here mention that this method is also practised at Easter

in the whole of the States of the Church, with all the inhabitants. If

your card is not among those collected from the different confessors, it

is evident that you have not fulfilled the precept, and if you do not

give a satisfactory reason for it before the 26th of August, your name

is fixed on the door of the parish church as that of a sacrilegious and

infamous person. In the college of Senegallia, where I was educated,

we were about two hundred boarders. Eight confessors were appointed to

shrive. At sunset we descended to the chapel, whence we went in turn

into the different schoolrooms to confess. The rooms were darkened,

and the fathers were seated each in an arm chair, before a sort of

confessional, through a grating of which our sins had to find their

way to their pious ears. To such confessors as had been more severe on

former occasions we usually played some tricks, such as putting a piece

of raw garlic into our mouths, and pretending to be seized with a fit of

coughing or sneezing, so that the poor confessor, who, in order to hear

our confession well, was obliged to have his face close to the grating,

had his olfactory nerves assailed by a puff of breath which was anything

but agreeable. The penance, you may be sure, was double, but it never

deterred us from playing similar pranks again, though we religiously

fulfilled it. Sometimes we contrived to evade confession altogether in

the following manner:—One who was going in to the confessional took with

him the card of another along with his own. In kissing the hand of the

confessor, after having confessed, he put into it one card, and slipped

the other upon the table on which the father laid those he was receiving.

After all was over, the servant brought in a light, and the confessor

collected all the tickets he found on the table, and took them with him.

Meanwhile, the person whose card had thus passed through the confessional

without its owner was skulking in a closet or some other hiding-place,

till, after the lapse of a sufficient length of time, he returned, as

if he had religiously fulfilled the duty required. If you ask whether

we believed in the efficacy of confession, I answer that we all firmly

believed in it, and that in any illness or danger we would have earnestly

asked for a confessor; only we did not like to go to it so often.

[208] Crét. vol. iv. p. 226.

[209] Gioberti is a Roman Catholic priest, ex-Premier of the King of

Sardinia, and one of our greatest living philosophers. Though strictly

orthodox, and even partial to the Papal authority, he has contributed

more than any other man to give the last fatal blow to the Jesuits in

Italy. His _Gesuita Moderno_ (Modern Jesuit), in which he lays bare all

the iniquities of the fathers, has ruined their order for ever, in the

estimation of the Italians, and effectually prevented them from again

setting foot in Piedmont. I do not share his political or religious

creed, but Italy must preserve the memory of the benefit he has conferred

upon her on this point, and I, in particular, have to confess myself

grateful to him for the advice and encouragement he has kindly given me

in the compilation of this work.

[210] _Gesuita Moderno_, vol. iii. p. 226. Ed. di Losanna.

[211] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 92, in a note.

[212] _Mémoires de Sully_, tom. ii. ch. 3.

[213] See Ranke, vol. ii. p. 132.

[214] See Bellarmine in Ranke, vol. ii. pp. 116, 117.

[215] See l’Abbé Racine, _Abrégé de l’Histoire Ecclésiastique_, tom.

x. p. 40. See also Fra Paolo Sarpi, who has immortalised his name as

theologian of the Venetian Government, and historian of the contest.

[216] Crét. vol. iii. p. 180.

[217] Mariana was one of the most learned Spanish Jesuits, the personal

enemy and the most fiery opponent of Acquaviva. He opposed to his utmost

Molina’s doctrine on grace and free will, and propounded, as we have in

part seen, the principle of the sovereignty of the people. He was held in

great veneration among the Spaniards.

[218] See _Ratio Studiorum_. See also Ranke, vol. ii. p. 88.

[219] Serry, in Ranke, vol. ii. p. 88.

[220] _Arbitrii cum gratiæ donis concordia._

[221] See it exposed more at length in Ranke, vol. ii. p. 90.

[222] Serry.

[223] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 131.

[224] Crét. vol. ii. p. 176.

[225] Escobar compiled his work of _Moral Theology_ from twenty-four

Jesuit authors, and in his preface he finds an analogy betwixt his

book and “that in the Apocalypse which was sealed with seven seals,”

and states that “Jesus presented it thus sealed to the four living

creatures,” Suarez, Vasquez, Molina, and Valencia (four celebrated

casuists), in presence of the four-and-twenty Jesuits, who represent the

four-and-twenty elders.

[226] Crét. vol. iv. p. 58.

[227] Le monde s’était plaint depuis l’origine du Christianisme de

l’austérité de certains precepts; les Jésuites venaient au secour de ces

doléances, &c.—Crét. vol. iv. p. 50.

[228] Busembaum, apud Ranke, vol. ii. p. 394.

[229] Antony Escobar. _L. Theol. moralis vigenti-quatuor Societatis Jesu

Doctoribus reseratus._ Ex. de pænitentiâ, ch. vii. N. 155. (Lugduni,

1656. Ed. Mus. Brit.)

[230] Thomas Tambourin. _Methodus Expeditæ Confessionis_, L. ii. ch. iii.

§ 3, N. 23. (Lugduni, 1659. Antverpiæ, 1656. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

[231] George de Rhodes. _Disput. Theologiæ Scholasticæ_, tom. i. Dis. xi.

quæs. xi. sec. 1 and 2, and Dis. i. q. iii. sec. 2, § 3. (Lugduni, 1671.)

[232] In quoting Pascal, we make use of the translation of Dr M’Crie, to

render the author’s meaning better than we could do. P. 107.

[233] John of Salas. _Disputationum R. P. Joannis de Salas, e Soc.

Jesu, in primam secundæ D. Thomæ_, tom. i. tr. 8, sec. 7, 9, N. 74, 83.

(Barcinone, 1607. Ed. Bibl. Arch. Cant. Lamb.)

[234] Gregory of Valentia. _Commentariorum Theologicorum_, tom. iii. dis.

v. quæs. 7, punct. iv. (Lutetiæ Parisiorum, 1609. Ed. Coll. Sion).

[235] Thomas Sanchez. _Opus Morale in præcepta Decalogi_. L. ii. c. i. N.

6. (Venetiis, 1614. Antverpiæ, 1624. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

[236] Antony Escobar. _Universæ Theologiæ Moralis Receptiores absque lite

Sententiæ, necnon Problematicæ Disquisitiones_, tom. i. L. ii. sect. i.

de consc. c. 2. N. 18. (Lugduni, 1652. Ed. Bibl. Acad. Cant.)

[237] Simon de Lessau. _Propositions dictées dans le Collége des Jésuites

d’Amiens._ De præcept. Decal. c. i. art. 4.

[238] Thomas Tamburin. _Explicatio Decalogi._ L. i. c. iii. § 4. N. 15.

(Lugduni, 1659. Lugduni, 1665. Ed. Coll. Sion.)

[239] _Op. Mor._ p. 2.

[240] Ibid.

[241] Tr. 1. et. 2. n. 21.

[242] Pintereau in Pascal, pp. 205, 206.

[243] “These are the devotions presented at pp. 33, 59, 145, 156, 172,

258, 420 of the first edition.”

[244] Pascal, pp. 176-178.

[245] Gregory XV. and his nephew Cardinal Ludivisi, have two magnificent

monuments in the Church of St Ignatius of the Collegio Romano, which

church they had built and richly embellished for the Jesuits, and where

they are buried.

[246] This man is famous for working miracles. He is said to have

restored to life his dear companion, a pig, which had been stolen from

him, after it had been killed and eaten, and its bones thrown into a

furnace; just as Thor, the great Scandinavian god, restored to life his

ram. Another great miracle is recorded of him by his panegyrist. Having

been forbidden by his superior (St Antony was a monk) to work too many

miracles, he one day found himself in a great perplexity. As he was

passing through a street, he heard a poor mason, in the act of falling

from a lofty building, call upon him by name for a miracle. The poor

saint, not knowing what to do, had recourse to an expedient. “Stop a

moment,” said he, to the falling man, “till I go for the permission of

the Father Superior;” and the man waited suspended in the air till he

returned with permission to work the miracle!

[247] This was the case with many, and, to mention one, with Father

Zaccheria, the founder of the Barnabites, who had been a _beatifice_ for

eighty-four years, had mass and prayers offered to him, but is at present

merely Father Zaccheria.

[248] This congregation, as well as all the others, such as those of

indulgences, of inquisition, &c., is composed of cardinals, bishops,

prelates, and some few advocates. They form a sort of committee.

There is a prefect and secretary; the others are called _consultori_,

counsellors—the Pope is _de jure_ prefect of them all. Those of the

Congregation of Rites are very glad when there is a canonisation. They

are entitled, besides, to a portrait of the saint, which, if the saint

take, they sell very dear, and to I know not how many pounds of chocolate.

[249] For Loyola’s sake we should have liked that one of the three

first-class miracles, recorded in the bull of canonisation, should have

been a little more supernatural, and a little more decent, perhaps. It is

said in the bull, that a woman of Gandia, being dropsical, applied to the

part affected the image of the saint, and was cured, _imagine dicti beati

ventri admota_, &c.

[250] The saying of one of the descendants of Charles Borromeo has

remained famous in Italy. After having paid all the expenses of the

canonisation, he turned to his family and said, “Be always good

Christians, my dear children, but never saints; one other saint, and we

are ruined for ever.”

[251] Vol. iii. p. 471.

[252] S. i. c. iii. p. 64.

[253] S. iii. p. 401.

[254] Ibid. 402.

[255] Roman Catholics consider it their duty to send children to the

confessional at the early age of seven years; and nine out of ten hear

for the first time, from the confessor, words which awaken in their young

and innocent minds lascivious and till then unknown desires.

[256] Crét. vol. iv. p. 366.

[257] This is the bull by which the Pope declared that the five

propositions were to be found in Jansenius; and this gave rise to the

celebrated distinction of _fact_ and _right_.

[258] The place was called Mont Louis, but was afterwards converted

into a magnificent and beautiful cemetery, which now bears the name of

Lachaise.

[259] A _lettre de cachet_ was an order bearing the king’s signature,

generally requiring the arrest or exile of the person specified. Under

the reign of the despotic Louis, _lettres de cachet_ were issued

with scandalous profusion. The courtiers, the ministers, the king’s

mistresses, asked, in exchange for a flattery or a caress, a _lettre de

cachet_. Often the letter was blank, having only the king’s signature,

and left to the person who had obtained it to fill it up with any name

and any sort of punishment he pleased. Father Lachaise had always by him

a quantity of letters of this last sort.

[260] In the first years of Louis’s reign that right resided in a

commission composed of two prelates and a Jesuit; but Ferrier, Lachaise’s

predecessor, possessed himself of the exclusive right, which ever after

belonged to the king’s confessor.

[261] Letellier was accused of being the contriver of the following

shameful deception. In 1690, during a dispute, M. de Ligny, Professor

of Moral Philosophy at the Royal College of Douay, fell out with Father

Beckman, a Jesuit professor. Drawn to extremities in the argument, he

menaced his opponent with revenge, saying, _Ego te flagellabo_—“I will

give you a whipping.” Fifteen days after, Ligny received a letter under

the false signature of Antoine A——; that is, Antoine Arnauld, the famous

Jansenist, with an address for the expected answer. Now, the professor,

flattered by the honour of receiving a letter from so famous a man as

Arnauld, replied to the letter, and continued the correspondence—so

that at last the impostor, under the name of Arnauld, drew from Ligny

the names of those who opposed the Jesuits, all of them doctors and

professors in theology. The impostor thereupon began and continued a

correspondence with these doctors, who supposed they were writing to

the true Arnauld, the staunch opponent of Jesuit doctrine. Ligny even

begged the invisible Arnauld to be his spiritual director, and sent him

a general confession of the state of his conscience. Thereupon he was

induced to leave his chair, his benefice, and to send all his papers to

the impostor, whilst he set out by the same command to a place appointed,

which was Paris. He went to St Magloire, but found no Arnauld; proceeded

from place to place, until at last the simple Fleming found that he was

duped. Meanwhile, however, all the professors before alluded to were

denounced by the Jesuit Letellier, and exiled to various towns in France;

and Ligny himself was sent to Tours. Meanwhile, the Jesuit published a

letter directed to a doctor of Douay, under the title of _Secrets of the

party of M. Arnauld lately discovered_. Then Arnauld, in his place of

exile, discovering the cheat, published a first and second complaint,

and a third, concluding one in answer to the Jesuit who had replied to

his second. Every one was indignant, and even Louis XIV. himself. But

the Jesuits assured him that they were innocent of the plot; and having

obtained forgiveness for a supposed contriver, Tournelay, a doctor whom

the Jesuits had named professor in the place of the expelled Gilbert,

confessed that he had himself played the part of the false Arnauld, and

the Jesuits were by this imposture exculpated from this act of perfidy.

In the _Gazette_ of Rotterdam, 1692, it is said, “But little esteem

was felt for him (Tournelay) since it was discovered that he consented

to pass for the father of the false Arnauld, to exculpate the Jesuits,

and above all, author de Vaudripont, the man who had answered Arnauld’s

complaint, and who was supposed to act by Letellier’s inspiration.”

[262] See _Edinburgh Review_, vol. lxxiii. p. 361.

[263] Crét. vol. iii. p. 356.

[264] Ibid. p. 363.

[265] Crét. vol, iii. p. 362.

[266] Ibid. p. 363.

[267] Crét. vol. iii. p. 179.

[268] Ibid. p. 388.

[269] Ibid. pp. 371, 372.

[270] Crét. vol. iii. p. 375.

[271] This proclamation was the decree by which the bigoted Ferdinand

II., with revolting injustice, dispossessed legitimate holders of

property which had belonged to religious communities, but which in great

part had been allotted more than a hundred years before to those monks

and priests who had embraced Protestantism, and which, passing through

many hands to the persons then in possession, constituted the most

legitimate property.

[272] Crét. vol. iii. p. 390.

[273] Krasinski’s _Lectures on Slavonia_, p. 321.

[274] Ranke’s _History of the Popes_, vol. ii. p. 161.

[275] Literæ Academiæ Cracoviensis ad Academiam Lovaniensem, 2 July 1627.

[276] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 362.

[277] This Bellarmine, as is known to many of our readers, was a famous

Jesuit, a cardinal, and one of the most fanatic and bigoted in the order,

celebrated above all for exalting the Papal authority above every other

earthly power. He is the author of a catechism, which is still taught

over all Italy, under the name of _La Dottrina Cristiana de Bellarmino_.

He was very learned, and appears not to have been a bad man, as regards

his outward conduct.

[278] Jardine is, perhaps, the most impartial guide to follow in

inquiring into this tragical event.

[279] Pasquino and Marforio are, or at least were (only one of them being

now in existence), two statues placed at the corners of two contiguous

streets in Rome, on which the Romans affix those libels in which they,

generally speaking, express their hatred of the Roman court and its

abominable vices. The statues are supposed to address one another.

[280] Butler, _Mem._ ii. 51.

[281] “N’ont ils pas conservé en Angleterre le germe qui se développe

avec tant de vigueur, et qui en Irlande, après trois cents ans de

martyre, devient une révolution légitime?” Vol. iii. 510.

[282]

“Ché assolver non si può chi non si pente,

Nè pentere e volere insieme puossi

Per la contradizion che nol consente.”—DANTE’S _Inferno_.

[283] The Recorder of London, the Dean of St Paul’s, and that of

Westminster, accompanied him to the fatal scaffold, and at that awful

moment, when the wretched man had need to prepare himself for the

presence of the supreme infallible Judge, they, for the space of an

hour, obliged him to discuss the lawfulness of equivocation, and the

criminality of the Plot, and thus subjected him to another trial!

[284] Oldcorne was executed on the 17th of April 1606, Garnet on the 3d

of May of the same year.

[285] Crét. vol. iii. p. 476.—He might have said that Fischer was the

author of many paltry contrivances, and that his endeavours were not so

much directed to alleviate the misery of the persons of his persuasion as

to resuscitate enemies to the established government, in conformity with

the wishes of Spain and France.

[286] Politique du clergé de France, ou entretiens curieux; deuxième

entretien: par Pierre Jurieu la Haye, 1682.

[287] Crét. vol. iii. p. 489.

[288] Crét. vol. iv. p. 197.

[289] Ranke, quoting Herrara, vol. ii. p. 228.

[290] We need hardly remind our readers, that when we speak of the idle,

luxurious, and selfish life of the monks, we speak of the generality, for

we are not so illiberal as to say, that among them was to be found no one

really animated by a true zeal, and by the desire of converting infidels

to that religion which they thought the true one.

[291] Crét. vol. iii. p. 292.

[292] Ibid. p. 289.

[293] Crét. vol. iii. p. 312.

[294] Crét. vol. iii. p. 502.

[295] See this and other letters of this prelate in Arnauld, tom. xxxii.

and xxxiii.

[296] Palafox, wishing to see the authorisation, which the fathers

pretended to have, to confess without the diocesan’s order, in opposition

to a decree of the Council of Trent, asked them to shew him such an

authorisation; they answered that they had the privilege not to shew it.

“Let me see that privilege,” said the bishop. “We have the privilege to

keep secret our privileges.” “Shew me at least this last privilege.”

“We are authorised to keep secret even this other privilege.” See the

letter in which the prelate relates the fact in Arnauld, tom. xxxiii. pp.

486-534.

[297] Letter to Innocent X., An. 1649, ss. 14-18.

[298] Letter of Palafox to Father Rada, Provincial of the Jesuits,

1649. See Arnauld, tom. xxxiii. p. 643. Some Jesuits have denied the

authenticity of this letter, others the truth of the accusation, and

have called the prelate a calumniator. As to the authenticity of the

letter, it cannot be denied, since the bishop himself published it in his

_Defensa Canonica_, dedicated to the King of Spain; and the well-known

character of Palafox puts his veracity beyond question; nor would he have

dared to bring before the royal throne a false accusation.

[299] I forgot to mention, in speaking of the canonisation of saints,

that, in general, many years are allowed to pass after obtaining a title

of Servus Dei, for example, before the other title, Venerabilis, is asked

for, and so on.

[300] The office of this personage in the canonisation is to raise, _pro

forma_, objections to its accomplishment, by questioning the virtue of

the man, the reality of his miracles, and so on. In Italy he is called

the advocate of the devil; and our Gioberti, with perhaps more wit than

Christian charity, says, “In the case of Palafox, the name (advocate

of the devil) may have well become him, as he was the advocate of the

fathers.”

[301] Owing to the French Revolution of seventeen hundred and

eighty-nine, the proceedings for the canonisation of Palafox, which had

lasted fifty-five years, were never resumed, till lately an attempt was

made to make a saint of him; but the Jesuits were again too powerful to

allow it, and the case is yet pending, so that it may be said that the

good Palafox is in a sort suspended between earth and heaven.

[302] Gioberti, _ut supra_, vol. iii. p. 151.

[303] For the persecutions to which all those ecclesiastics, regular or

secular, were subjected, because they would not submit to the domineering

spirit of the Jesuits, see the preface of tom. xxxii. of Arnauld’s work,

with documents.

[304] Inhibendum est Patri Grenerali, totique societate ne in posterum

recipiant novicios ad habitum societatis, neque admittant ad vota sive

simplicia sive solemnia.

[305] See the _Mémoires Historiques de Norbert_, already quoted. See also

_Anecdotes sur Le Chine_, t. vi. p. 408.

[306] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 388.

[307] _Epist. Meutii Vitelleschi_, &c. (Antwerp, 1665.)

[308] Gioberti _Il Gesuita Moderno_, vol. iii. p. 299.

[309] Diario Deone apud Ranke, vol. ii. p. 389.

[310] Vincentii Caraffæ _Epistole de Modis conservandi primævum spiritum

Societatis_. Part of it apud Ranke, in a note, vol. ii. p. 391.

[311] Ibid.

[312] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 389.

[313] Circumstantial narration in the contemporary _discorso_, apud

Ranke, vol. ii. p. 396.

[314] Crét. vol. iv. p. 96.

[315] Gioberti, vol. iii. p. 299.

[316] Gioberti, vol. iii. p. 299.

[317] The tone in which Annat wrote to his general deserves to be

remarked, and to be compared with the letters that Lainez and Borgia used

to write to Loyola—“I cannot omit to communicate,” he writes, “to your

paternity my grief on seeing that the hope which I had conceived of a

speedy conclusion of the peace between the sovereign pontiff and the most

Christian king has vanished.... I do not know what malignant coincidence

of events _destroys all my plans_,” &c.

[318] _MS. Bibl. Harl._ v. 895, f. 143.

[319] _Bartoli Giappone_, t. 22.

[320] Crét. vol. iv. p. 417.

[321] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 293.

[322] St Priest’s _History of the Fall of the Jesuits_, English Trans. p.

3.

[323] A Jesuit was the confessor of that faithful wife!

[324] St Priest’s _History of the Fall of the Jesuits_, English Trans. p.

4.

[325] Crét. vol. v. p. 158.

[326] St Priest, p. 9.

[327] Ibid.

[328] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 392.

[329] _Voyage de Duquesne Chef d’escadre_, tom. xxxv. p. 15.

[330] Crét. vol. v. p. 171.

[331] Lavallette.

[332] Ranke, vol. vii. p. 443.

[333] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 444.

[334] St Priest, p. 12.

[335] St Priest, p. 13.

[336] Fifteen hundred of these monks landed at Civita Vecchia. It was

a pitiful sight to behold some of those very old priests torn from

the place where they had spent their lives, and thrown upon a foreign

land. Even the Dominicans, their constant opponents, were touched with

compassion, and received them kindly; and they have perpetuated the

memory of this act of generosity by an inscription on stone.

[337] See it reported in St Priest, p. 21, and following.

[338] Crét. vol. v. p. 236.

[339] Three generals, Retz, Visconti, and Centurioni, had, after

Tambourini, governed the Society; and the 19th General Congregation,

named Lorenzo Ricci, who was the 18th General before the suppression.

[340] The debts of Lavallette amounted to 2,400,000 francs; but Crétineau

assures us that the houses and lands belonging to the Company were bought

by English capitalists for the sum of four millions of francs! Did not

the Jesuits well observe the vows of poverty, this _bulwark of religion_?

[341] St Priest, p. 27.

[342] Ranke, vol. ii. p 447; St Priest, p. 29.

[343] _State Papers and Manuscripts of the Duke of Choiseul._ See St

Priest, p. 18.

[344] See Ranke, vol. ii. p. 447; Crét. vol. v. p. 274.

[345] The property which the Jesuits possessed in France was estimated at

fifty-eight millions of francs; but in that sum, says Crétineau, must not

be included the alms which were given to the _Maisons Professes_. They

possess fifty-eight millions, and ask for _alms_! Oh! holy poverty!

[346] _Despatches of the Marquis d’Ossun to the Duke of Choiseul._ See St

Priest, p. 34.

[347] Crét. vol. v. p. 293.

[348] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 448.

[349] St Priest, p. 35.

[350] See in Ranke, vol. ii. p. 447, a note, where he quotes a passage of

a MS.

[351] Crét. vol. v. p. 296.

[352] St Priest, p. 36; Crét. vol. v. p. 297.

[353] Crét. vol. v. p. 284.

[354] See it in Crétineau, vol. v. p. 301.

[355] Ibid.

[356] St Priest, p. 43.

[357] See St Priest, p. 45; Crét. vol. v. p. 312.

[358] Ranke, vol. ii. p. 448.

[359] Ibid.

[360] Instructions to the Cardinals De Luynes and De Bernis, February 19,

1769. See St Priest, p. 54.

[361] St Priest, p. 58.

[362] Crét. vol. v. p. 326. He quotes the No. 14 of the _Lettres inédites

D’Aubeterre_. We have not an opportunity of verifying these letters, and

must rest on his authority. St Priest says that it was, on the contrary,

De Bernis who promised to the ambassadors to consult Ganganelli; but

however it is, what appears incontestable is, that Ganganelli was

consulted.

[363] In the time of our short republic, we were once moved to tears by

seeing some Trasteverini throw off their hats, and spontaneously, without

being told or taught, go and kiss these magical and once respected

letters, S.P.Q.R. Indeed I even feel moved in writing them.

[364] St Priest, p. 55.

[365] St Priest, p. 56.

[366] See St Priest, p. 57, who reports all these details, as given by

the emperor himself to D’Aubeterre. Joseph enlarged complacently on his

contemptuous policy toward the Holy See, and declared, in plain terms,

_that he knew the Court of Rome too well not to despise it_, and thought

very little of his admission to the Conclave. “Those people,” said he,

speaking of the cardinals, “tried to impress upon me the value of this

distinction, but I am not their dupe.”

[367] In Italy, the monasteries of the orders called mendicant are the

refuge of three peculiar classes of persons. The first class of those

who repair thither are idle, unthinking fellows, who disdain to do any

sort of work; the second are those who have but the convent to escape

the prison; and the third, those youth who, feeling within themselves

the power, the capacity, or the ambition of achieving some great deeds,

and seeing no possibility of emerging from the crowd, have recourse to

the cloister as the only way left them of arriving at eminence. Almost

all the men of mark among the Italian clergy have been monks, born of

poor and humble parentage; and many Popes were of the same. It is known

that not a penny is requisite to enter into those monasteries, while, to

become a secular priest, one requires to possess some little property.

[368] It was he who began that magnificent museum in the Vatican,

increased afterwards by Pius VI., which bears the name of Museo

Pio-Clementino, and which is the admiration of all Europe.

[369] See Ranke, vol. ii. p. 449, in a note quoting “Aneddoti riguardanti

la famiglia e le opere di Clemente.”

[370] Francesco was a lay brother, for whom Ganganelli preserved to the

last the most sincere friendship and affection.

[371] St Priest, p. 60. It was in this convent that Ganganelli resided

before his exaltation to the pontificate, and he often went thither

afterwards to spend some hours.

[372] Ranke (vol. iii. p. 449) exaggerates Ganganelli’s virtues, and

represents him as faultless and holy, which brings us to make a remark on

the celebrated German historian. His indefatigable industry in searching

archives and public and private libraries, and inspecting unpublished

manuscripts, has enabled him to throw light on many obscure questions;

but we think that often, on the simple authority of some ambassador’s

relation, or private letters, or of writings without name, which only

express the private opinion of the writer, he has established principles,

and deduced consequences, that are not in accordance with what is known

or may be ascertained by an accurate examination of the facts. We could

give many instances of what we assert.

[373] 1 Tim. iii. 1.

[374] Gioberti, vol. iii. p. 347.

[375] Crét. vol. v. p. 332.

[376] St Priest, p. 61.

[377] It is to be remarked, that now that the most perfect concord reigns

between the Court of Rome and the fathers, and that they support each

other, the latter have changed their language in regard to this affair,

and that same Crétineau assures us that he disbelieves this imputation.

[378] See St Priest, p. 63.

[379] St Priest, p. 63.

[380] Ibid. p. 64.

[381] St Priest, p. 65.

[382] St Priest, p. 66.

[383] Ibid.

[384] Letter of Choiseul to the Cardinal de Bernis, August 10, 1769. See

it, Crét. vol. v. p. 342, ff.

[385] St Priest, p. 73.

[386] Ibid.

[387] See it in St Priest, p. 73, in a note.

[388] St Priest, p. 86.

[389] _Brief Dominus ac Redemptor._

[390] Vol. ii. p. 450.

[391] St Priest, p. 86.

[392] St Priest, p. 28.

[393] St Priest, _ubi sup._ He has extracted all those details from a

letter of Florida Blanca, addressed to Pope Pius VI.

[394] It is differently reported by what means the consent of Austria

to the destruction of the Jesuits was obtained. The report most current

at the time was, that Charles III. obtained it from Maria Theresa, by

sending to the empress her own confession, which her Jesuit director had

sent to the General, and which the king had had the means of obtaining.

St Priest, in contradicting this opinion, says that Maria Theresa’s

resistance was conquered by her son Joseph, who, although he took little

interest in the affair as it affected the Jesuits, yet coveted their

possessions.

[395] These are the words attributed to the Pope by the popular

tradition. However, St Priest, following Caraccioli, makes the Pope

exclaim, after having signed the brief, “Questa suppressione mi dará la

morte”—This suppression will be my death.

[396] Gioberti, vol. iii. p. 374.

[397] It is here given as translated in the _Protestant Advocate_, 1815,

vol. iii. p. 153, &c.

[398] Crét. vol. v. p. 275.

[399] Ibid. p. 390.

[400] St Priest, p. 50.

[401] _Botta Storia d’Italia cont. da quella del Guic._ 48. See also

Gioberti, vol. iii. p. 391, and ff.

[402] St Priest, p. 89.

[403] Botta, _ubi supra_.

[404] Georgel, _Memoires_, vol. i. p. 160. Apud St Priest, p. 90.

[405] Gioberti, quoting Florida Blanca, vol. iii. p. 394.

[406] St Priest, p. 91, and following. All these details of the illness

and death of Ganganelli we have taken from St Priest, adding now and

then some particulars which we have found in other writers. But St

Priest is the best authority on the subject. He has drawn from original

sources—the Letters of Bernis, of Florida Blanca, the History of Botta

Gorani Caraccioli—and has condensed his materials into a most accurate

and impartial narrative. It would be useless, then, either to send back

our readers to those authors, or to endeavour to analyse them ourselves.

We shall, then, be contented with some reflections or deductions at the

proper place.

[407] Ibid.

[408] Botta, _ubi supra_.

[409] Gioberti, vol. iii. p. 392.

[410] St Priest, p. 92.

[411] It is a popular tradition, and, indeed, not at all unfounded, that

in Perugia some persons had the secret of composing a sort of water

which, when drunk, produced certain death, although life was prolonged

for more or less space of time, according to the quantity and strength

of the dose given. The nuns, in particular, had a sad celebrity for

composing this drug.

[412] St Priest, p. 93.

[413] St Priest could not find those documents anywhere.

[414] See all those letters in St Priest, p. 93, and following.

[415] St Priest, p. 78.

[416] It is commonly reported in Italy, and it is also believed in

France, that on the day commemorating Ganganelli’s death, every year,

the Jesuits, at least those who are deep in the secrets of the order,

assemble in a room, and, after one of them has addressed a volley of

curses and imprecations against Clement’s memory, every person present

pierces his image with a poniard. We repeat the popular belief, without,

however, warranting its correctness.

[417] St Priest, p. 97.

[418] D’Alembert to Frederick. April 24, 1774.

[419] St Priest, p. 144.

[420] St Priest, p. 155.

[421] See this Testament in Crétineau, vol. v. p. 401, and ff.

[422] Czerniwiecz, Lenkeawiecz, and Korell.

[423] Crét. vol. vi. p. 33.

[424] Vol. iii. p. 30.

[425] The translation here given is from the _Protestant Advocate_, vol.

iii. p. 13, &c.

[426] As lively turf with green herb.—DANTE.

[427] Crét. vol. vi. p. 323.