IDOLATROUS USAGES INTRODUCED.
It must not be supposed that the only grounds of complaint against
the Jesuits were those already enumerated. Wheresoever they were sent
among heathen and unchristianized peoples, they gave trouble to the
Church, and inflicted serious injury upon the cause of Christianity.
When they found a missionary field occupied by any of the monastic
orders, they endeavored either to remove them, or to destroy their
influence by assailing their Christian integrity, so that they could
have everything their own way. They accustomed themselves to obtain
their ends by whatsoever means they found necessary, considering
the latter as justified by the former. Not in Paraguay alone, but
wheresoever else they obtained dominion over ignorant and credulous
populations, it was mainly accomplished by persuading them to believe
that conversion to Christianity consisted in the mere recital of formal
words the professed converts did not understand, and in the ceremony
of baptism without any intelligent conception of its character, or
of the example and teachings of Christ. The seeds of error they thus
succeeded in scattering broadcast among the natives of India, China,
and elsewhere, have grown into such poisonous fruits that all the
intervening years have failed to provide an antidote, and it remains a
lamentable fact that the descendants of these same professing converts
have relapsed into idolatry, and continued to shun Christianity as if
all its influences were pestilential. They became Brahmins in India,
and, by practicing the idolatrous rites and ceremonies of that country,
brought the cause of Christianity into degradation. Continuing steadily
to follow the advice of Loyola, they everywhere became "all things
to all men," by worshiping at the shrines of the lowest forms of
heathen superstition as if they were the holy altars of the Church. And
when rebuked for this by the highest authorities of the Church, they
justified themselves upon the ground that any form of vice, deception,
and immorality became legitimated by Christianity when practiced
in its name. In China they engaged with the natives in worshiping
Confucius instead of Christ, and made offerings upon his altar without
the slightest twinge of conscience. They omitted nothing, howsoever
degrading, which they found necessary to successfully planting the
Jesuit scepter among the Oriental populations, until at last, after a
long and hard struggle, they were brought into partial obedience by
the Church, whose authority they had defied, and whose precepts they
contemptuously violated.
Whatsoever may be said or thought of the various religions which have
prevailed throughout the world, there is one thing about which there
can be no misunderstanding; that is, that the Brahminism of India and
the Christianity of Christ can not be united together harmoniously.
There are many reasons for this, apparent to every intelligent mind,
but a few only are sufficient for present purposes. It has always been
the central idea of the former that Brahma should be worshiped through
a multitude of divinities, representing each passion and emotion of the
mind; and that his wrath shall be appeased by sacrificial offerings,
even of human beings, in order to reach total annihilation as the
highest and most perfect state of beatitude after death; whereas the
central idea of Christianity is that worship is due only to one God,
the Author of all being and the Sovereign of the universe, so that
when man shall reach "the last of earth," his spirit shall enter upon
immortality. Brahminism held India for centuries in degrading bondage,
and Christianity was designed to lift mankind to a higher plane of
being. This belief was universal among all Christians, howsoever they
may have differed in forms of faith and modes of worship; and none were
louder in its profession than the Jesuits, who pretended that they
alone were worthy to occupy the missionary field, and were specially
and divinely set apart to spread the gospel among all heathen peoples.
In carrying on their work, however, in India, they violated their
solemn vow of fidelity to the Church by casting aside every pretense of
Christianity, and openly, but with simulated professions of Christian
zeal, adopting the idolatrous practices common to the natives. They
shamelessly cast aside the profession of Christianity as if it were
a thing of reproach, and performed with alacrity the most revolting
Hindoo rites, seemingly as regardless of the obligation of obedience
to the Church as of their own dignity and manliness of character.
They substituted fraud, deceit, and hypocrisy for that open, frank,
and courageous course of conduct which a sense of right never fails
to suggest to ingenuous minds. They unchristianized themselves by
becoming Brahmins and pariahs, crawling stealthily and insidiously into
the highest places, and sinking with equal ease and skill into the
lowest and most degrading. Even in this enlightened and investigating
age, many intelligent people will wonder whether or no these things
are possibly true, inasmuch as they shock so seriously every sense of
personal honor and religious duty. But the verifications of them are
sufficiently abundant to remove all possible doubt, furnished, as they
are, not alone by the authors of general history, but by those friendly
to the Jesuits, and usually prompt to apologize for them.
One of the most conspicuous of the Jesuit missionaries to India, after
Xavier, was Nobili, who reached Madura about the beginning of the
seventeenth century. It is pretended that his predecessors had been
unable to convert any of the Brahmins, inasmuch as they had labored
exclusively with the pariahs, who, besides being shunned and despised
by the Brahmins, had paid no heed whatsoever to their Christian
admonitions. Nobili, therefore, taxed his ingenuity to discover some
practical method of removing this difficulty. He had before him
numerous examples of those who had spread the cause of Christianity by
openly professing and courageously vindicating it. There was something
inspiring in the thought that in its past successes Christianity had
required no disguises, but had achieved its victories over paganism in
the field of open and manly controversy. To a devout and Christian mind
there was no ground of compromise between Brahminism and Christianity.
One or the other had to yield--they could not unite. Nobili knew this,
and but for his Jesuit training would scarcely have departed from the
plain line of Christian duty. With his mind, however, disciplined by
the belief that it was his duty to be "all things to all men," he
imitated the example of Mahomet, who went to the mountain when it
would not come to him, by casting aside his character of Christian
and becoming a Brahmin himself. He assumed the character and position
of a "_Saniassi_;" that is, the highest caste among the Hindoos.
What that word means is not very plain, but the Jesuits insist that
those Brahmins who bore it had given some indications of penitence,
and that the object of Nobili was to insinuate himself into their
favor, secretly and by false pretenses, and thus bring them over to
Christianity. There is much reason for believing that this was an
afterthought, set up as a defense when the flagrant and unchristian
conduct of the Jesuits excited general distrust among the Christians of
Europe. But if it expressed the real motive existing at the time, it
was then, as always, wholly without justification or excuse--a plain
and manifest breach of Christian obligation and duty. He could not
become a Saniassi without denying that he either was or had ever been a
Christian, and without solemnly affirming that he was a native Hindoo,
and not a European--the latter, known by the hated name of Feringees,
being held in special and universal contempt by all the natives, and
especially by the Brahmins.
All these things, of course, involve false professions and oaths
without number; and, more than that, such stifling of the conscience as
to leave it incapable of distinguishing between truth and falsehood,
or between fair and false dealing. It was all done, says the Jesuit
historian Daurignac, "with the approval of his superiors and of the
Archbishop of Cranganore;" that is, it had full Jesuit indorsement. And
as if it were possible to find merit in such profanation of what all
Christians consider sacred, by departing from the rules of Christian
life, this same authority informs his readers how Nobili appeared as
a Jesuit-Brahmin, after he discarded all the distinguishing marks
and characteristics of Christianity, and presented himself in the
capacity of a full-fledged native Hindoo. "He assumed," says he, "the
costume of the penitent Brahmins, adopted their exterior rule of life,
and spoke their mysterious language." He shaved his head, wore the
Brahmin dress, including ear-rings reaching down his neck. And "to
complete the illusion"--that is, the deception and false pretense--he
represents him as having "marked his forehead with a yellow paste,
made from the wood of Sandanam"--a practice peculiar to the Hindoo
Brahmins. Thus metamorphosed he "passed for a perfect Saniassi, and the
Brahmins themselves, wondering at such a rival, sought his presence,
and questioned him as to himself, his country, and his family." His
disguise, however, perfect as it was, did not cause him to forget
that he was still in fact a Jesuit, and he, obedient to his training,
carried his impostures and falsehoods far enough to make his deception
complete and effectual. Consequently, "his oath obtained for him
admission among the most learned and holy Brahmins of the East. They
named him Tatouva-Podagar-Sonami--a master in the ninety-six qualities
of the truly wise." And thus, by means of the most unblushing hypocrisy
and false oaths, Nobili denied his religion, his name, his country, and
the God whom he had professed to worship, and became a Hindoo Saniassi,
all for "the greater glory of God."[111]
Numerous other Jesuits imitated this example of Nobili, and became
both Brahmins and pariahs. Some of them were specially trained and
tutored for the purpose, under the elastic system of Jesuit education,
each one, of course, having been carefully instructed in the best and
safest modes of practicing deception, of violating oaths, and of making
the basest means contribute to the end designed to be accomplished. It
is claimed for them, apologetically, that they thus became enabled to
convert many hundred thousand Indians, both Brahmins and pariahs, to
the cause of Christianity. No intelligent mind, however, can be misled
by such a pretense as this, for if even that number of the natives were
brought under their influence, they could not have risen higher than
the low standard fixed by the lives of their Jesuit instructors. But
this story can not be accepted as true, coming as it does only from the
active agents in this vast system of fraud and falsehood. It is far
more likely to have been only one more untruth added to the multitude
which these Jesuit impostors were in the habit of repeating daily.
Besides, if any such conversions to Christianity had occurred, the
impostures of the Jesuits would have been discovered, and the whole of
them driven from the country. The Jesuits then in India admit enough
themselves to assure us of this. One of them said: "Our whole attention
is given to concealing from the people that we are what they call
Feringees. The slightest suspicion of this on their part would oppose
an insurmountable obstacle to the propagation of the faith,"--the plain
and obvious import of which is, that honesty and fair dealing would
have weakened the cause of Christianity, whereas its strength was
increased and maintained by false pretenses, false swearing, and the
false profession of devotion to the Brahminical religion. Another one
of them said: "The missionaries are not known to be Europeans. If they
were believed to be so, they would be forced to abandon the country;
for they could gain absolutely no fruit whatever. The conversion of
the Hindoos is nearly impossible to evangelical laborers from Europe:
I mean impossible to those who pass for Europeans, even though they
wrought miracles." At another place he represents that it "would
have been the absolute ruin of Christianity" if the Jesuits had been
known as Feringees or Europeans; that is, that in order to advance
Christianity, it was necessary to deny it, even under oath, and to
profess that the idolatry of the Hindoos was the true worship of
God.[112]
The pretense of the Jesuits, therefore, that immense numbers of
converts to Christianity were made by them, must have been entitled
to no higher credit than their other professions; at all events, the
acknowledged authors of a system of falsehoods and deceptions are not
entitled to our confidence. It is possible, however, that they may have
succeeded in baptizing in secret a few of the natives, and that some
Brahmins were among them. But if they did, it is quite certain that
the ceremony must have been administered by stealth, and generally
so that those who were baptized had no distinct knowledge of what it
meant, and may not even have known the time of its administration.
At no point in the Jesuit missionary system has more harm been done
to the cause of true Christianity than at this. Millions of ignorant
and deluded people have been persuaded to believe that Christianity
consisted in nothing else but the mere ceremony of baptism, without any
intelligent conception of God. Xavier commenced this system in India,
and these Jesuit-Brahmins, who followed Nobili, were his imitators.
Taking all the accounts together, the number of converts in India was
simply enormous, and yet in 1776, after the Jesuits had left there,
a very small percentage of their estimated numbers were found.[113]
But these exaggerations are more excusable than the methods adopted
to impose baptism upon unsuspecting and simple-minded multitudes. The
German Steinmetz, alluding to this, says: "They insinuate themselves as
physicians into the houses of the Indians; draw a wet cloth over the
head and forehead of the sick person, even when at the point of death;
mutter privately to themselves the baptism service; and think they have
made one Christian more, who is immediately added to the list." The
Jesuit De Bourges is represented by him as saying: "When the children
are in danger of death, our practice is to baptize them without asking
the permission of their parents, which would certainly be refused. The
Catechists and the private Christians are well acquainted with the
formula of baptism, and they confer it on these dying children, _under
the pretext of giving them medicine_;" that is, by that kind of "pious
fraud" which, according to the Jesuits, promotes "the greater glory of
God." Another Jesuit father, whose experience in India enabled him to
speak advisedly, mentions one woman "whose knowledge of the pulse and
of the symptoms of approaching death was so unerring, that of more than
ten thousand children whom she had herself baptized, not more than two
escaped death." The number of such baptisms during a famine in 1737
are alleged by still another Jesuit to have been "upwards of 12,000."
And he supplements this statement by saying that "it was rare, in any
place where there were neophytes, for a single heathen child to die
unbaptized."[114] Looking over this whole field of Jesuit operations,
and contemplating the demoralizing influences of the Jesuits in India,
this same German historian feels himself warranted in saying that
"every Jesuit who entered within these unholy bounds, bid adieu to
principle and truth--all became perjured impostors, and the lives of
all ever afterwards were but one long, persevering, toilsome LIE."[115]
It would be a fruitless task to summarize the pretexts invented by
the Jesuits to convince ignorant and superstitious people that God
not only approved, but directly sanctioned, the frauds and perjuries
they practiced in his name, and that he had specially and divinely set
them apart--distinct from any other body of people in the world--to
demonstrate how "the greater glory of God" could be promoted by such
iniquities. If the line could be accurately drawn between their good
and evil deeds, it would be most instructive to observe how enormously
the latter exceed the former. There was no trouble whatsoever for
a Jesuit Saniassi to assume the character of a Christian and an
idolatrous Hindoo almost at the same instant of time, in which dual
capacity he could perform miracles, like those of Xavier, with the
ease and skill of a modern prestidigitator. They even held the wildest
animals at bay by the odor of sanctity which encircled them! One of
them states that, when traveling at night with his companions, a large
tiger was discovered approaching them, when, by simply crying out,
"_Sancta Maria!_" the ferocious animal became terrified and moved away,
showing, "by the grinding of his teeth, how sorry he was to let such
a fine prey escape." Another, to show how Providence overshadowed and
shielded the Jesuits, said "that when heathens and Christians happened
to be together, the tigers devour the former without doing any harm
to the faithful--these last finding armor of proof in the sign of the
cross, and in the holy name of Jesus and Mary."[116] Such superstitious
tales as these are told, and many pretended miracles added to them,
with a seeming unconsciousness upon the part of those who relate them,
that the world has reached a period when the truth can be discovered,
even through all the disguises which falsehood and deception may throw
around it.
To those who have not investigated the history of the Jesuits, as
written by themselves, these accusations may seem harsh and unmerited;
not so, however, to those who have. No matter where they went, the
obligation of being "all things to all men" was held to be obligatory
upon every member of the society. Obedience to the Superior was the
highest virtue, notwithstanding it may have involved violations of the
laws of God, of morality, and of society. How else could professed
Christians pretend to be engaged in the practice of virtue by denying
Christ, disavowing his worship, and habitually practicing the debasing
rites of the Hindoo religion, for more than a century, as Nobili
and his Jesuit followers and imitators did? And what other possible
pretext can be offered for the Jesuit worship of Confucius in China,
in religious confraternity with the natives, who made their public
ceremonies and festivities special testimonials of their adoration
of him as the founder of their national religion and the chief among
the gods of their idolatry? We shall see how these things were by the
proceedings which led to their condemnation by the popes, although the
Jesuit historians, who are forced to acknowledge them, try hard to show
that the pontifical censure was not deserved.
Daurignac--the ablest of the Jesuit defenders--referring to the
course of Nobili and others who practiced idolatrous rites, says:
"Some Europeans had been scandalized by this method of appearing _all
things to all men, in order to win all to Christ_." This sentence
is misleading in this, that instead of there being merely "some"
who felt scandalized, there were multitudes throughout Europe. The
ecclesiastical authorities at Goa, in India, were also of this number;
and when the complaint reached there that Nobili "had become a Brahmin,
and given himself up to idolatry and superstition," he was summoned
to Goa to explain his conduct. He could not disobey this summons, and
when he reached there, "the sight of his singular costume elicited a
general expression of indignation" among the Christians. When required
to explain, by the Archbishop of Goa, as the official representative of
the Church--appointed by the pope for that purpose--the only defense
he could make was that his motives were good; that is, that the
prostitution of himself and his sacred calling was well meant because
his object was to promote "the greater glory of God!" The Jesuits at
Goa accepted his reasons "as sufficient," says Daurignac. There are two
methods of accounting for this: First, they were Jesuits; and second,
because Nobili's method of falsehood and deception opened to them new
and extensive fields of operation, which, if recognized, they could
occupy with great success in extending the power of their society. But
the archbishop thought otherwise, and "absolutely refused" to accept
Nobili's reasons as satisfactory. Accordingly--speaking for the Church
and the pope, as he was authorized and empowered to do--he condemned
the conduct of Nobili and the reasons he assigned. Nobili "asserted
that the truths of the gospel could not have been introduced into
Madura by any other means;" but the archbishop refused to accept this
excuse, evidently regarding it as a debasing doctrine, aimed at the
very foundation of Christianity. Neither would yield. Nobili, backed
by the Jesuits, insisted that he was under no obligation to obey the
archbishop, although he acted under the special authority of the Church
and the pope; and the result was that the matter had to be sent to Rome
and the decision of the pope awaited. In the meantime Nobili returned
to Madura, where he continued his idolatrous practices, notwithstanding
the censure of the Archbishop of Goa was resting upon him, and he
was thereby placed in the attitude of disobedience to the legitimate
authority of the Church.[117]
Jesuit ingenuity was not sufficient to limit the scope of the inquiry
thus brought before the pope and the Papal Curia at Rome, because of
the increasing indignation against the society. Added to the complaints
of the Portuguese authorities regarding their conduct in Paraguay, and
that of Nobili at Madura, their idolatrous worship of Confucius in
China came generally to be known about this time. Consequently, the
investigation which it became necessary for the pope to make, had not
only increased in importance, but became broader almost every day. Not
only were the matters involved important to the Church, but to the
cause of Christianity throughout the world; for it was easy to foresee
the injurious and demoralizing results if the Jesuits were permitted
to mingle Christian and idolatrous worship together, so as to make
it appear to every heathen people within the limits of their missions
that Christianity sanctions both forms of worship in the same degree.
Consequently, it became necessary for the pope to examine and decide
both questions at the same time; that is, whether the Church could
rightfully tolerate either the adoption and practice of the Hindoo
rites by the Jesuits in India, or their participation in the idolatrous
worship of Confucius in China.
Among the notable events connected with the latter was the arrival
in China of some Dominican and Franciscan missionaries, and their
surprise at discovering the idolatrous practices of the Jesuits. Having
never suspected even the possibility of the teachings of the Church
being so tortured as to furnish apology for idolatry, they considered
the conduct of the Jesuits "a real scandal," which deserved to be
rebuked. What seemed to them as especially censurable was the fact
that the Jesuits had taught their neophytes to use the Chinese term
"_King-Tien_," to express the idea of God--not as the Creator of the
universe, but as the presiding Deity over a multitude of other deities,
each having a separate sphere of sovereignty. To them it was not easy
to conceive of anything more likely to undermine Christianity, because
by limiting or lessening in any way the sovereign attributes of God,
the whole Christian system would topple and fall. They, accordingly,
notified the apostolic vicar in China, as the immediate representative
of the Church there, of this unscrupulous and unchristian conduct of
the Jesuits, in order, if possible, to apply the proper corrective and
remove the "scandal" from the Church. The vicar did not have much to
do to discover that the accusations of the monks against the Jesuits
were true; and when this became known to him, he not only condemned
their idolatry, but "severely censured them" for practicing it. The
Jesuits, by way of defense, attempted to explain why they had applied
an idolatrous Chinese term to the God of the Christians, and in doing
so exhibited their accustomed sophistry--in which they have always been
adepts--in such way as to convince the vicar, as well as the Dominican
and Franciscan monks, of their entire want of sincerity and candor, to
say nothing of their loss of Christian integrity. They pretended that
"the honors paid to Confucius were merely civil ceremonies, with which
the Christians did not associate any religious ideas whatever, and that
the word _King-Tien_, in the Chinese language, simply conveyed the
idea of God as understood by Christians." This, they said, they were
informed by the Chinese mandarins and learned men. Hence, they argued
that unless the idolatrous worship they had adopted were allowed to
prevail, it would be impossible to obtain sufficient influence over
the Chinese to draw them to Christianity--the precise meaning of which
was, that unless they were permitted to practice the idolatrous rites
of heathenism, the Chinese could never be induced to become Christians.
This argument was thoroughly Jesuitical, and failed to mislead either
the vicar apostolic or the Dominican and Franciscan monks, all of whom
could see through the thin disguise with which the Jesuits attempted
to conceal their ultimate purpose of bringing the Church authorities,
with the pope at their head, in obedience to them. It did not require
any Chinese learning for them to understand that it was impossible, in
the nature of things, for the Chinese to have introduced into their
language any word, or even any set of words, expressive of the idea of
God as Christians understood it. They were familiar with the universal
rule that the language of every people is constructed solely to express
their own ideas, sentiments, and thoughts, and not such as prevail
among those with whom they hold no intercourse. Candor and fair dealing
with the Church and the cause of Christianity, therefore, required them
to recognize the facts that the Chinese word _King-Tien_ conveyed only
the idolatrous idea of the superior godship of Confucius, and that
it was so used in all the civic and other ceremonies of the Chinese.
The result consequently was, that the vicar united with the monks in
repudiating the position and doctrine of the Jesuits, and vigorously
condemned and censured them for bringing the established worship of
the Church into disrepute. This decision alone--made by the regularly
constituted authorities of the Church--constitutes a most important and
pregnant fact, which should not be overlooked by those who desire to
understand the history of the most wonderful society the world has ever
known.
This decision undoubtedly conformed to the opinion of the pope and
of all the Church authorities throughout Europe, outside the circle
of Jesuits. When announced by the apostolic vicar, with the approval
of the monks, it should have put a stop to all further idolatrous
proceedings on the part of the Jesuits. Any other body of men, who
acknowledged the jurisdiction of the Church, would either have obeyed
it by entirely abandoning the condemned practices at once, or, at all
events, would have ceased to follow them until the prohibition was
removed by the pope, whose superior jurisdiction could not be denied
without rebellion against the Church. But the Jesuits did not belong to
an order accustomed to submission to any other authority than that of
their superior, whom each of them had solemnly sworn to recognize as
equal to God, and to obey accordingly. They acquiesced in the decisions
of the popes when they conformed with their own opinions and purposes;
when they did not, they employed all their combined ingenuity and
cunning to evade them. Consequently, they disobeyed the vicar, spurned
the counsel of the monks, and persisted in continuing their idolatrous
practices, under the pretense that they were awaiting the decision of
the pope.[118]
The popes were compelled to deal slowly and cautiously with such
questions on account of the difficulty of access to such remote
countries as India and China, and the unavoidable delays in
transmitting intelligence between them and Rome. Precautionary measures
were adopted by sending special prelates of the Church, chosen by
the pope for that purpose, not only with directions to investigate
and report the facts, but with authority to establish temporary
regulations which should become operative while waiting the pope's
approval, and final when that was given. One of these prelates was a
Spanish Dominican, named Morales, who was sent to China in 1633 by Pope
Urban VIII. This was twelve years after the matter had been submitted
to Paul V, and was rendered necessary by the fact that it had remained
undecided during the pontificate of Gregory XV. When Morales reached
China, he entered upon the necessary examination with sufficient care
to become convinced of the unchristian conduct of the Jesuits, and,
accordingly, condemned their ceremonies as idolatrous. This incensed
the Chinese authorities--who are supposed to have been influenced to
this by the Jesuits--and "the Dominicans and the Franciscans were
driven from the country," leaving the Jesuits alone to follow their
idolatrous practices without the interference of the monks or of
Morales, who, being a Dominican, was included among those expelled.
Morales had then spent twelve years in China, and all that time was
laboring with the Jesuits to induce them to give up their participation
in the worship of Confucius; but his efforts were wholly unavailing.
They had brought themselves into favor at the court of the Chinese
emperor, and were unwilling to surrender the advantages thus obtained,
preferring them to the service of the Church. There was, therefore, no
other course left to Morales, after his expulsion from China, but to
proceed to Rome and report to the pope, who was then Innocent X. This
he did in 1645, when he fully laid before the pope what he had observed
in China, making known, of course, the fact that he had been banished
on account of his fidelity to the trust assigned him. It was impossible
for the pope to abandon the matter at this point, and he accordingly
submitted to the Congregation of the Propaganda, to be decided for his
information and guidance, these two questions: "Is it permissible to
prostrate one's self before the idol _Chachinchiam_? Is it permissible
to sacrifice to _Keumfucum_; that is, Confucius?" By these questions
the Jesuit methods of procedure in China were brought directly
before this established tribunal of the Church at Rome, so that the
decision of them by the pope was unavoidable. What that decision was,
is shown by the following statement made under the immediate auspices
of Archbishop Hughes, of New York, in the "Lives and Times of Roman
Pontiffs," by De Montor: "On the reply of the Congregation, the pope
issued a decree forbidding missionaries of any order or institute to do
either of those things, until the Holy See gave a contrary order."[119]
Thus, whatsoever other popes may have done or omitted to do, Innocent X
solemnly decreed that the Jesuit practices were wrong and would be no
longer tolerated by the Church. He had not then learned--what became
perfectly apparent to many of his successors--that the Jesuits were
as familiar with the various methods of brushing papal decrees out of
their way as they were with the frauds and hypocrisies by which they
duped and misled the heathen at the expense of the Christian cause.
There seems to have been some unnecessary delay, and possibly some
undue prevarication, in the manner in which the popes disposed of
these troublesome matters. De Montor represents that several of the
popes who succeeded Innocent X permitted the Jesuits to continue their
idolatrous ceremonies; to wit, Alexander VII, Clement IX, Clement X,
Innocent XI, Alexander VIII, and Innocent XII. This general statement,
however, is misleading, and calculated to do injustice to these popes,
unless taken in connection with the fact that none of them went further
than to say that the Jesuits might unite with the Chinese in their
_civil_ ceremonies, when they were, in no sense, religious. None of
them undertook to decide whether the sacrifice to Confucius did or
did not involve religious worship; for that was the question directly
submitted to them, and with regard to which the utmost pains were taken
to procure accurate and reliable evidence. But it is undoubtedly true
that the Jesuits misconstrued what had been done by these six popes,
and perverted their meaning to suit themselves, by continuing their
idolatrous practices with increased impunity. And they did this to
such an extent, and so openly, that in 1693, Maigrot, Apostolic Vicar,
Doctor of the Sorbonne, and Bishop of Conon, was constrained, as the
representative of the Church, to forbid the idolatrous ceremonies of
the Jesuits by a special prohibitory decree. The date of this decree
is important, inasmuch as it shows how many years it took and how hard
it was to bring the Jesuits into subordination to the Church; in other
words, how little they cared for the Church, or the popes, or vicars
apostolic, or the ancient monkish orders, when either of them alone, or
all combined, ventured to place the least impediment in their path. The
question with regard to the idolatrous practices of Nobili arose first
in 1618, and was submitted to Paul V in 1621. Hence, up to the time of
his official decree of condemnation by Maigrot, as vicar apostolic,
seventy-two years--nearly three-quarters of a century--had elapsed,
during all which time the Jesuits had enjoyed an uninterrupted triumph
over the Church, the popes, and Christianity.
This condition of things made it absolutely necessary that the severe
and protracted strain upon the authority of the Church should, in
some way, be brought to an end, and that the stigma the Jesuits had
inflicted upon Christianity should be removed. Consequently, Pope
Clement XI--after eight more years of delay--appointed a new vicar
apostolic and legate in the person of the distinguished Cardinal De
Tournon, in order to insure a complete and thorough investigation of
the conduct of the Jesuits in India and China. He was empowered to
represent fully the authority of the Church and to act in the place
of the pope. De Tournon entered upon his mission with zeal, and
having, after investigation, found all the accusations against the
Jesuits completely verified, issued a decree, in June, 1704, whereby
he condemned in the strongest and most explicit terms the Chinese
and Malabar rites practiced by the Jesuits. This decree is given
by Nicolini, and a perusal of it will show the degraded state into
which the Jesuits had brought the professedly Christian worship--even
to the adoption of the superstitious and immoral customs of the
idolaters.[120] Up till this time the Jesuits had enjoyed nearly a
hundred years of impunity, and as the Church had been unable, during
this long period, to impose upon them any restraint they had not
contrived the means to defy, their idolatrous worship and demoralizing
doctrines could no longer be tolerated without incalculable harm.
Therefore, the severe measures adopted by De Tournon, by the express
authority of Clement XI, were fully justified.
The Jesuits again evidenced their perverse and stubborn nature by
impudently appealing from the decree the pope had authorized De
Tournon to make in his name, to the pope himself, manifestly hoping
either to bring him over to their side, or to procrastinate his
final decision indefinitely. They repeated their favorite argument,
that Christianity could not be propagated in India and China without
making the worship of idols part of its religious ceremonies. They
also impeached the character of the evidence upon which De Tournon
had relied, by insisting that it was obtained from those who did not
understand the people of India or China, or their languages. In all
this they persisted in assuming that, in order to convert a heathen
people, Christianity must be first converted into heathenism, that
it may furnish a starting-point for obtaining ultimate dominion over
them. This meant that heathens must be converted to Christianity by the
Jesuits alone, inasmuch as none others besides them had endeavored to
engraft upon Christian faith and worship any idolatrous ceremonies, or
the duty and necessity of falsehood and hypocrisy, as means to an end.
But the pope was not misled by this demoralizing subterfuge, and, after
hearing them fully and giving all proper consideration to what they
said, he brushed it all aside by giving his express and unreserved
approval to the decree published by De Tournon as his legate. De Montor
admits this; but there is abundant evidence of it apart from this
admission. In his life of Clement XI he says:
"But Clement, having examined the affair in 1710 and 1712, confirmed
all the decrees that had been made against the ceremonies, as well as
the edicts of Cardinal De Tournon; and on the 19th of March, 1715,
by the constitution _Ex illa die_ (found in Vol. X of the _Bullarium
Romanum_), he _more vigorously condemned those rites_; and he
established the form of the oath which thenceforth was to be taken by
every missionary in the Indies, promising that observance in their own
names, and in the names of their order."[121]
No language could be plainer or more emphatic than that here employed
by the pope. It was not uttered in a mere brief, which the Jesuits
insist may be changed to answer any subsequent emergency, but in a
formal pontifical bull, issued _ex cathedra_, and which, if the popes
were all infallible, must be accepted as of divine authority. But
whether called by one or the other of these names, it was the solemn
official act of a pope--the head of the Church--and as such, according
to the teachings of the Church, was final and binding upon all who
professed fidelity to it. And it would have been so regarded by any
of the ancient monastic orders, and by all who had respect for the
authority of the Church. But the Jesuits did not represent either
of these classes; and as the power of the pope was not sufficient
to change their course, or unsettle them in their purposes, they
continued to persevere in their disobedience, with an utter disregard
of consequences. They went to the extent of persuading the Emperor of
China to order the arrest of De Tournon, which was done by the Bishop
of Macao--who was one of their tools--who caused him to be loaded
with chains, and thrown into prison, where, from "ill treatment," he
died.[122]
These incidents, so unfavorable to the peace of the Church, threw the
questions into abeyance again during the succeeding pontificate of
Innocent XIII, after which it assumed such magnitude and importance
that Benedict XIII was compelled to deal with it both energetically
and sternly. This he did by further confirming the decree of Cardinal
De Tournon, and the bull of Clement XI, reasserting the unchristian
practices and conduct of the Jesuits. But even this did not overcome
their obduracy; and the next pope, Clement XII, was compelled to
issue still another bull, confirming those of Benedict XIII and
Clement XI.[123] The world has never furnished another instance of
such flagrant and persistent disobedience as this. Even another pope,
Benedict XIV, found it absolutely necessary to issue two additional
bulls of censure and condemnation against the Jesuits, in both of which
the decree of De Tournon was approved by words of express reaffirmance.
He intended and expected to settle the matter finally, and terminate
the long-continued disregard of the Church authority by the Jesuits.
Nevertheless, like his predecessors for many years, he was compelled
to realize that he was dealing with an adversary whose ambition was
insatiable, and whose capacity for intrigue was without limitation
and as untiring as the wind. De Montor tells the result, but omits
any comment upon the triumph of the Jesuits over all the popes who
passed censure upon them and sought to impose restraints upon their
conduct. He speaks of the "discord between the other missionaries and
the Jesuits, the former reproaching the latter with not fully and
frankly observing the bull," and makes the discomfiture of the popes
palpable by adding, "These disputes lasted till the dissolution of
the society."[124] This is equivalent to saying that the only way
to bring them into obedience to the Church was to dissolve them. We
shall hereafter see, however, that they did not even obey the act of
dissolution.
As the society was originally established by Paul III in 1540, and was
abolished by Clement XIV in 1773, it thus appears that considerably
more than one-half the period of its existence had been spent in open
and flagrant resistance to the authority of the popes and the Church--a
pregnant fact, which no sophistry can palliate or explain. But as our
inquiries proceed, there will be other years of resistance to add to
these, along with such combinations of circumstances as show how the
society became odious to the Christian world, and how rightfully it was
dissolved.
FOOTNOTES:
[Footnote 111: Daurignac, Vol. I, p. 303.]
[Footnote 112: Steinmetz, Vol. III, p. 474. Citing the Jesuit Fathers
De Bourges and Martin.]
[Footnote 113: _Ibid._, p. 489.]
[Footnote 114: Steinmetz, Vol. III, p. 490, and note 1, where these
authorities are cited.]
[Footnote 115: _Ibid._, p. 491.]
[Footnote 116: Steinmetz, Vol. III, p. 467.]
[Footnote 117: Daurignac, Vol. I, pp. 336-367.]
[Footnote 118: Daurignac, p. 53.]
[Footnote 119: Lives and Times of the Roman Pontiffs. By De Montor.
American edition. Vol. II, p. 191.]
[Footnote 120: Nicolini, p. 114.]
[Footnote 121: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 192.]
[Footnote 122: Nicolini, pp. 126-127.]
[Footnote 123: De Montor, Vol. II, p. 192.]
[Footnote 124: _Ibid._, p. 278.]