Whatever the catholic zeal may have produced, nothing can exceed the insolence and seditious spirit of the reformers. Knox's usual appellation of the queen of Scotland, the unfortunate Mary, wasJezebel. "The political principles of that man, which he communicatedto his brethren, were as full of sedition as his theological were of rage and bigotry[27]." Was there no treason, was there no regicide doctrine in the following brutal speech, which he addressed to her? "Samuel feared not to slay Agag, the fat and delicate king of Amalek, whom king Saul had saved: neither spared Elias Jezebel's false prophets, and Baal's priests. Phineas was no magistrate, yet feared he not to strike Cozbi and Zimri. And so, madam, your grace may see, that others than chief magistrates may lawfully inflict punishment on such crimes as are condemned by the law of God[27]."
Is it not the zeal for proselytism, that daily thins the established church of England, and increases the congregations of the innumerable denominations of sectaries, which are tolerated in this country, and of which each, if it could, would make its own universal? Even in private and temperate characters, a conformity ofsoul is one of the bases of friendship. The desire of impressing our sentiments and opinions upon the minds of those we love is the source of intercourse; we should be dumb without it. It is not wonderful, that this spring of the social system should extend to the principles of religion; and to say, that a Christian is zealous to make a Pagan a Christian is to bestow the highest praise upon him. If the reformed missionaries deserve this praise, it cannot be refused to the Jesuits. Nothing, in fact, can be more laudable than such a zeal, and all that can be objected to it is foreign to its real nature. The treasons and crimes, which have been imputed to the Jesuits, Hume himself has shown were falsely charged to them. Vice is not inherent in any profession of faith; it is inherent in the corrupted nature of man. Compare a Knox with a Bordaloue, a Prynne with a Beauregard or a Bossuet, and we shall be blind if we do not perceive the difference between the zeal which actuates the Christian, and that which leads to treason and to crime.
Hume's other objection to the Jesuits was, "their cultivation of learning for the nourishment of superstition." Now we very well know how far his idea of superstition extended, and that it did not fall short of the whole system of revealed religion. It is not necessary to dwell long upon this objection. The superstition which is injurious to mankind, must be the offspring of ignorance; and, no one denies, that ignorance and superstition were very prevalent in the dark ages of the world, and even long after the revival of letters; no one denies, that weak and illiterate minds, of whatever persuasion, are yet prone to it. What is meant by the superstitionnourished by learningcan only be the impression of mysteries, which the understanding, however puzzled, finds sufficient grounds to entertain, and on which to build hopes of an immaterial and immortal connexion with the Supreme Being. This kind of superstition, or rather this religious impression, has ever been cherished by the noblest minds, and forms a prominent part of the character of learnedmen of all persuasions. Attached, myself, to the church of England, it is, nevertheless, clear to me, that the Reformation has generated the most absurd superstitions; and I cannot conceive that there is a man, of unbiassed mind and good sense, who would not rather embrace all that has been retrenched from the catholic creed, than adopt the spurious abominations and blasphemies which, every where, under the screen of toleration, disgrace the world. But I am not here entering into a defence of the Roman church, or into a derision of the vagaries which have sprung from imaginary rationality, or misapplied enthusiasm; my only purpose was to speak of Hume's authority; and I shall quit the subject of superstition to turn to that of casuistry, to which he also alludes.
And here it is that the deadliest blow is aimed against the Jesuits. If their system of morality makes virtues of "prevarication, perjury, and every crime, when it servesghostlypurposes," the reproach is fatal. On this head, the writerof the pamphlet gives us a string of casuists, to confound the order at once. Desirous either of clearing away or substantiating this charge, and recollecting the remark of Voltaire, which I have already cited, that "the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and Flemish Jesuits wereartfullyascribedto the whole society," I inquired more particularly into the character and objects of the casuists of the order; and, the more I reflected, the more I was convinced of the malignity of the adversaries of the society, on whom the charge might well be turned, changing Hume's derisive epithet ofghostlyinto two other qualifying words,viz.rebelliousandrevolutionary; for who will deny thatprevarication,perjury, andevery crime, have been resorted to, and justified for rebellious and revolutionary purposes?
In such a number of casuistical writers, it may be imagined, that some have erred. The Jesuits never wished to defend them. It may be presumed, that the number of errors was not great,since their enemies found it necessary to commit so many falsifications to make up the volume ofAssertions. In many instances, the author of that book attributes to the casuist, opinions which he only cites to refute. In moral theology the Jesuits had two rules, from which few of them ever deviated; one was, to follow the opinions which were mostcommon; the other, never to defend an opinion when prohibited or condemned by the holy see. Some of their casuists taught doctrines, which, in their time, were the most usual in schools, but which were afterwards condemned or prohibited at Rome. Their enemies imputed these doctrines to them as crimes. The Dominican and Franciscan casuists might have been equally charged; but, as Voltaire observed, it would not haveanswered the purpose.
The chief casuists, collected toanswer the purposein the new conspiracy against the Jesuits, are the following: Lamy, Moya, Bauny, Berruyer, Casnedi, and Benzi. Since, next to theMonita Secreta, that infamous forgery socompletely exposed in the subsequent Letters, the writer of the pamphlet relies on the immoral doctrines to be found in the writings of these priests, let us see on what foundation they stand. I shall first observe, that theApology for the Casuists, said to be published by the Jesuits, so far from being avowed as a work of their own, was disavowed by the superiors of the order, and condemned by the pope and many prelates. It was written by Pere Pirot, who seemed, in a manner, determined to justify Pascal's Satires, by defending certain opinions, in spite of their having been condemned, as D'Avrigny informs us, in hisMemoires Chronologiques et Dogmatiques pour servir à l'Histoire Ecclesiastique depuis 1600 jusqu'en 1716, &c.[28]The author laments the hard fate of religious societies, of which he observes,que toute faute personelle dans le jugement du public devient une faute generale, et les enfans portent l'iniquité de leurs peres jusqu'à la troisieme et la quatrieme generation.
TheCourse of Theology, byLamy, is classed with theApology, as justifying murder, &c. This author was a Neapolitan, whose name wasAmici, and the work, from which the charge in question is extracted, consists of nine volumes folio! The proposition attributed to him, to blacken him as a Jesuit, was not his, nor ever adopted by him. It had been taught, long before, by the celebrated casuist Navarre, and others totally unconnected with the Jesuits. Amici mentions it, and alleges the reasons which had been given in support of it, but adds,nolumus a nobis (hæc) ita sint dicta ut communi sententiæ adversentur, sed tantum disputandi gratia proposita. The proposition was omitted altogether in the second edition of his work, and, being formally condemned by Alexander VII, in 1665, was never after defended by any catholic divine.
Moyaseems to have been a very virtuous man, though, perhaps, rather indiscreet in his zeal for the credit of his society. The facts arethese: a book had been published by one Gregory Esclapey, reproaching the Jesuits with teaching many erroneous doctrines. To this work Moya published an answer, under the name of Guimenius, in which he professedly abstains from all inquiry into the merits of the doctrines; but, being imputed to the Jesuits by their adversary, he undertakes to show, that they were not responsible for them, as they did not originate with them, having been taught by the older divines, previous to the existence of the order. The doctrines were condemned at Rome in 1666, and Moya, in the third edition of his work, proves the justice of the condemnation, by entering into a refutation of them.
Baunylived at the same time. He was the intimate friend and confidant of the famous cardinal de la Rochefoucault, archbishop of Sens, and reformer of the Benedictines. He was afterwards a zealous missionary in Bretagne, under the bishop of St. Pol de Leon. He died of his missionary labours. If he treated otherwith lenity, it is certain he did not spare himself. His "Somme des Pechés" was written, as he informs us, by the positive order of a bishop, probably the bishop of St. Pol, and it was published by order of the bishop, unaccompanied by the sanction or approbation of any Jesuit; nor was it used in their schools, consequently, its doctrines are nowise attributable to the society. It contains several relaxed propositions, deservedly censured by the French clergy in 1642.
Berruyeris stated by the pamphlet-writer to have been convicted of blasphemy, and condemned by Benedict XIII and Clement XIII. This is not true; he never was convicted of blasphemy. He was not a casuist. His "Histoire da Peuple de Dieu" was censured and condemned by Benedict XIV and Clement XIII. He was a man of much erudition, and master of an agreeable and graceful style, but fond of extraordinary opinions. The chief faults imputed to him are, that hedisparages the simplicity and majesty of the inspired books, by rhetorical tropes and figures, and modern phraseology; and that he discourses on the humanity of the Redeemer in a manner that seems to favour the ancient heresy of the Nestorians. The French Jesuits disavowed the work, and submitted unanimously to the condemnation of it. It is rather surprising, that this author should have been cited among the casuists by the writer of the pamphlet, who, if he had read the imputed blasphemy, would have found in it something of protestant principles, pushed even beyond the reform adopted by our church, refusing the Virgin Mary the title to her being mother of our Saviour in his divine nature. But what does this signify? It is enough to have heard that the book was condemned by a pope, no matter which; it could not have been condemned without being blasphemous; and who could suspect, that a Jesuit had any correspondent sentiment with protestants?
Casnediwas of a noble and ancient Milanese family; a man of great learning, zeal, and piety. He maintained, that the moral merit or demerit of an action depended upon the belief and intention of the agent. A very simple and incontrovertible proposition; but, being expressed in ardent terms, not unlike those used by the fanatical orators of the present day, it makes a flaming show among the articles of impeachment now instituted against the whole society of Jesus.
Benziis represented in several French and Italian libels in the foul colours copied by the writer of the pamphlet. He was a respectable and much injured man. He was universally revered in Venice, where he was a distinguished director and preacher. Far from teaching the horrors imputed to him, he merely gave an opinion, in writing, on being consulted, whether certain trespasses were to be considered as casesreservedornot reserved. It was merely aquestio juris, a technical opinion, and not adecision on the subject matter. Malice and calumny did the rest.
This, I believe, is thetriumphantlist of casuists drawn up, rank and file, to confront and confound the whole society to which they are said to have belonged. The philosopher Bayle tells us, that the writers in those days "had only to publish boldly whatever they chose against the Jesuits, they might be certain of convincing an infinite number of people. The prejudice against them had become so general, that, let them bring forward what proofs they might, it was not possible for them to undeceive the world." And he adds; "But I cannot imagine how the rules of morality suffer such an abuse of public prejudice[29]." Had he lived till now, he would have seen, that there are heads of the nineteenth century whichcan imagineit very virtuous to excite, foment, and augment prejudice on the same subject, in orderto gratify the vanity of writing, or the unfounded spleen of a less relenting philosophy than his own.
The great sources ofsuch historical proofsas have been amassed by the new conspiracy against the Jesuits being proved to be impure and unworthy of credit, it becomes as unnecessary as it is disgusting to wade through the mud and filth of the mass of obscure pamphlets referred to by the writer of the pamphlet, such as "Prynne's hidden Works of Darkness," and "Rome's Masterpiece," "Remarks of a Portugueze," "A true and certain Relation of sundry Machinations and Plots of the Jesuits," "The Anatomy of Popish Tyranny," "Recit des desseins les plus Secrets des Jesuites," "Jesuites Marchands," "Recueil des Procès contre les Jesuites," "Idée generale des Vices," &c. &c. There is, however, one more of the catalogue, which I will notice, to prove still farther the dishonesty of the means taken by the new conspirators to blacken the Jesuits; it is"Le Franc Discours, or the Memorial presented to Henry IV against them." Did it not become an inquirer into the truth of the accusations, to state the answer of Henry IV to the accusers of the Jesuits? An answer which, in itself alone, is enough to vindicate the society, and unveil the immense and complicated engine so long since put in motion for its destruction; and so irresistibly and successfully employed, in the course of time, by the framers of it. Pius VII is not the first, who has recalled the Jesuits; the great and good Henry IV recalled them, after they had been banished from his kingdom by the machinations of their enemies. Then it was, that he was memorialed; that remonstrance upon remonstrance was laid before him: but Henry was not easily imposed upon by passionate asseverations, nor made the dupe of envious persecutions. On the parliament delaying to give effect to his edict for the re-establishment of the Jesuits, he informed them, that he was determined to be obeyed; but he admitted a deputation of some of their members, withtheir first president, Harlay, at their head, who went to the palace to state anew their remonstrances. Dupleix, a French historian, says, that Harlay made a long harangue to the king, which "was rather an invective, filled with all the abuse and outrage in the pleadings of Pasquier and Arnaud; in the Catechism of Pasquier, and in the work entitledFranc Avis, against the society, than the speech of a statesman[30]." Henry's reply lies at this moment before me on the table, and, I think, I should be wanting to the cause of truth and justice, if I neglected to insert it here. It is rather long for a quotation, but it cannot be tedious, and I am certain, that every unprejudiced reader will be gratified with the perusal of it.
"It is very kind, it is very kind of you to be so careful of my person and my kingdom. I know your meaning perfectly; but you do not know mine. You have started difficulties, toyour thinking, very great and considerable, and little know, that I have thought on and considered them all these eight or nine years past; and that the best resolutions for the time to come are taken from reflections on things past, which I am acquainted with better than any person whatever. You set up for mighty statesmen, and understand state affairs no more than I do the drawing the report of a cause. As to the affair of Poissy[31]things would have gone much better for the catholics, if all of you had acted your part as well as a Jesuit or two, who, very luckily, happened to be there. There clearly appeared, not the ambition, but the abilities of the Jesuits; and I do not understand how you can make those ambitious, who refuse dignities and prelacies, and make a vow to God never to aspire to any preferment; and, who seek nothing in this world besides serving all that are willing to employ them, without anyview of interest or recompence. If the name of Jesuit displease you, why not find fault with those, who stile themselves religious of the Trinity; why not say, that your daughters are as much religious as the nuns, called here daughters of God[32]; and that you are as much of my order of the Holy Ghost as my knights and myself? For my part, I would as soon, or rather, be called Jesuit, than Augustinian or Dominican. As to the churchmen, who except against them, ignorance has always borne a grudge to learning; and I observed, when I began to speak of re-establishing the Jesuits, that two sorts of persons opposed this design; those of the pretended reformed religion, and churchmen of irregular conduct, which has gained them still greater credit and reputation. If the Sorbonne you talk of has condemned them, it was, quite like you, without knowing them; and, if the old Sorbonne would not own them out of jealousy, the new Sorbonne is very proud of, and esteems them; ifthey were not fixed in France before, God has reserved for me the honour, which indeed I esteem a favour, of settling them; and, if they were only provisionally admitted heretofore, they shall henceforward have a permanent settlement, both by edict and arret. The will of my predecessors kept them here, mine shall establish them. The university opposed them, either because they excelled others (witness the vast concourse of scholars to their colleges), or because they were not incorporated in the university, which will not be refused when I order it; and when I shall see that they stand in need of being better regulated. You say, that the greatest men of your parliament have learned nothing from them: if the oldest are the most learned, you are certainly right; they had ended their studies before the Jesuits had opened their schools. Other parliaments, I am credibly informed, do not say so; nor, indeed, does all yours. They teach better than others; that is the true reason why, since their absence, your University is quite abandoned, and studentsflock after these masters to Douay, and other places, within and without my kingdom. You say, they engage the brightest geniuses, they examine and pick out the best for their society: I commend them for it. When I raise troops, I chuse those who are likely to turn out the best soldiers. Were there no room for favour amongst you, would you admit any, but what were worthy of being members, and of having a seat in your parliament? I heartily wish you received such only as are quite deserving, and that virtue were always the badge and distinctive mark in posts of honour. If the Jesuits served the public with ignorant masters and preachers, you would despise them; and now, that they employ in your service men of wit and capacity, you are not pleased. As to the great estates, you say, they possessed, it is all calumny and imposture; and I very well know, by the account of the estates re-annexed to the crown, that seven or eight masters could not be maintained at Bourges and Lyons; whereas, when the Jesuits were there, they were thirty or fortyin number. But should there be any difficulty in this respect, I have provided against it in my edict. To call them afactious society, for being concerned in theleague, is a reproach that falls only on the times. They thought they did well: many others were concerned, with whom they were mistaken and deluded; and they own now, that they have found my intentions quite contrary to what they had preconceived. But, I am inclined to believe, they acted with less malice than others, and that the same disposition, with the favours they receive from me, will make them as affectionate to me, even more so, than they ever were to theleague. It is objected, they get footing in cities and towns by all means they can: so do others: I myself got into my kingdom as well as I could. It must be owned, that, with their wonderful patience and regular way of life, they may compass what they will; andtheir great care not to change or alter any thing in their institute will be the cause of their stability and long continuance. The vow of obedience they maketo the pope will not subject them more to his will, than the oath of allegiance they have taken to me will bind them not to undertake any thing against their natural sovereign. But their vow does not extend to every thing, as is vainly pretended; they only make a vow of obeying the pope, when he is pleased to send them to labour for the encouragement of infidels; and, in fact, the Indies are converted by them. As to the opinion of the pope, I know he esteems them greatly; so do I. But you do not tell me, that the pope was upon the point of seizing cardinal Bellarmine's Works, at Rome, for not allowing him as great an extent of jurisdiction as other divines do: and you studiously conceal what the Jesuits have lately maintained, that, though the pope could not err, Clement might be mistaken. Upon the whole, I am persuaded, that they say no more than others of the papal authority; and that, if opinions are to be tried, you must quarrel with those of the catholic church. It is said, that the king of Spain employs Jesuits; I tell you, that I amdetermined to do the same; why should France fare worse than Spain? Since all the world judges them useful to the public, let me tell you, I think them necessary to my kingdom. As to the doctrine, imputed to them, of withdrawing churchmen from obedience to sovereigns, or teaching subjects to attempt on their lives, it is proper to see, on one side, what they say, and, on the other, what they teach their scholars. What convinces me there is no such thing is, that, for these thirty years past, that they have taught in France, above fifty thousand scholars have been brought up in their colleges, have conversed and lived with them, and not one has yet been found, in that vast number, who pretends to have heard any such discourse among them, or any thing coming up to the doctrine with which they are reproached. What is more, ask protestant ministers, that have lived and studied under them, how the Jesuits live: to be sure, they will not spare them, were it only to justify their leaving the society. I know the question has been put to many, and nothingcould ever be got from them, but that their conduct and morals were without exception. Barriere was not encouraged, as you pretend, by any Jesuit. The first notice of that attempt I had from a Jesuit: another told him, he would be damned if he dared to go upon any such design. Châtel never accused them, nor could any torments extort any charge against Varade, or any other Jesuit. If any one had been accused, how came you to spare him? The other Jesuit, that was seized, was taken up on account of some printed papers found in his chamber. After all, though a Jesuit had done that foul deed, which I am resolved to forget, must all the Jesuits suffer, must all the apostles be banished for one Judas? At that time God was pleased to humble and to save me, for which I give him thanks: he teaches me to forgive all offences; and I have done it, freely and willingly, for his sake. I pray daily for my enemies; so far am I from remembering what is past, as you advise me to do, not very like good Christians, for which I do not thank you.The Jesuits are natives of my kingdom, and born my subjects; I will not harbour any suspicion against those whom their birth has placed under my government; and, if there should be any danger of their communicating my secrets to the enemies of France, I will take care to let them know only what I think fit. Let me manage this affair; I have gone through many others much more difficult: and now I charge you to think of nothing farther, than doing what I bid and command you to do."
"It is very kind, it is very kind of you to be so careful of my person and my kingdom. I know your meaning perfectly; but you do not know mine. You have started difficulties, toyour thinking, very great and considerable, and little know, that I have thought on and considered them all these eight or nine years past; and that the best resolutions for the time to come are taken from reflections on things past, which I am acquainted with better than any person whatever. You set up for mighty statesmen, and understand state affairs no more than I do the drawing the report of a cause. As to the affair of Poissy[31]things would have gone much better for the catholics, if all of you had acted your part as well as a Jesuit or two, who, very luckily, happened to be there. There clearly appeared, not the ambition, but the abilities of the Jesuits; and I do not understand how you can make those ambitious, who refuse dignities and prelacies, and make a vow to God never to aspire to any preferment; and, who seek nothing in this world besides serving all that are willing to employ them, without anyview of interest or recompence. If the name of Jesuit displease you, why not find fault with those, who stile themselves religious of the Trinity; why not say, that your daughters are as much religious as the nuns, called here daughters of God[32]; and that you are as much of my order of the Holy Ghost as my knights and myself? For my part, I would as soon, or rather, be called Jesuit, than Augustinian or Dominican. As to the churchmen, who except against them, ignorance has always borne a grudge to learning; and I observed, when I began to speak of re-establishing the Jesuits, that two sorts of persons opposed this design; those of the pretended reformed religion, and churchmen of irregular conduct, which has gained them still greater credit and reputation. If the Sorbonne you talk of has condemned them, it was, quite like you, without knowing them; and, if the old Sorbonne would not own them out of jealousy, the new Sorbonne is very proud of, and esteems them; ifthey were not fixed in France before, God has reserved for me the honour, which indeed I esteem a favour, of settling them; and, if they were only provisionally admitted heretofore, they shall henceforward have a permanent settlement, both by edict and arret. The will of my predecessors kept them here, mine shall establish them. The university opposed them, either because they excelled others (witness the vast concourse of scholars to their colleges), or because they were not incorporated in the university, which will not be refused when I order it; and when I shall see that they stand in need of being better regulated. You say, that the greatest men of your parliament have learned nothing from them: if the oldest are the most learned, you are certainly right; they had ended their studies before the Jesuits had opened their schools. Other parliaments, I am credibly informed, do not say so; nor, indeed, does all yours. They teach better than others; that is the true reason why, since their absence, your University is quite abandoned, and studentsflock after these masters to Douay, and other places, within and without my kingdom. You say, they engage the brightest geniuses, they examine and pick out the best for their society: I commend them for it. When I raise troops, I chuse those who are likely to turn out the best soldiers. Were there no room for favour amongst you, would you admit any, but what were worthy of being members, and of having a seat in your parliament? I heartily wish you received such only as are quite deserving, and that virtue were always the badge and distinctive mark in posts of honour. If the Jesuits served the public with ignorant masters and preachers, you would despise them; and now, that they employ in your service men of wit and capacity, you are not pleased. As to the great estates, you say, they possessed, it is all calumny and imposture; and I very well know, by the account of the estates re-annexed to the crown, that seven or eight masters could not be maintained at Bourges and Lyons; whereas, when the Jesuits were there, they were thirty or fortyin number. But should there be any difficulty in this respect, I have provided against it in my edict. To call them afactious society, for being concerned in theleague, is a reproach that falls only on the times. They thought they did well: many others were concerned, with whom they were mistaken and deluded; and they own now, that they have found my intentions quite contrary to what they had preconceived. But, I am inclined to believe, they acted with less malice than others, and that the same disposition, with the favours they receive from me, will make them as affectionate to me, even more so, than they ever were to theleague. It is objected, they get footing in cities and towns by all means they can: so do others: I myself got into my kingdom as well as I could. It must be owned, that, with their wonderful patience and regular way of life, they may compass what they will; andtheir great care not to change or alter any thing in their institute will be the cause of their stability and long continuance. The vow of obedience they maketo the pope will not subject them more to his will, than the oath of allegiance they have taken to me will bind them not to undertake any thing against their natural sovereign. But their vow does not extend to every thing, as is vainly pretended; they only make a vow of obeying the pope, when he is pleased to send them to labour for the encouragement of infidels; and, in fact, the Indies are converted by them. As to the opinion of the pope, I know he esteems them greatly; so do I. But you do not tell me, that the pope was upon the point of seizing cardinal Bellarmine's Works, at Rome, for not allowing him as great an extent of jurisdiction as other divines do: and you studiously conceal what the Jesuits have lately maintained, that, though the pope could not err, Clement might be mistaken. Upon the whole, I am persuaded, that they say no more than others of the papal authority; and that, if opinions are to be tried, you must quarrel with those of the catholic church. It is said, that the king of Spain employs Jesuits; I tell you, that I amdetermined to do the same; why should France fare worse than Spain? Since all the world judges them useful to the public, let me tell you, I think them necessary to my kingdom. As to the doctrine, imputed to them, of withdrawing churchmen from obedience to sovereigns, or teaching subjects to attempt on their lives, it is proper to see, on one side, what they say, and, on the other, what they teach their scholars. What convinces me there is no such thing is, that, for these thirty years past, that they have taught in France, above fifty thousand scholars have been brought up in their colleges, have conversed and lived with them, and not one has yet been found, in that vast number, who pretends to have heard any such discourse among them, or any thing coming up to the doctrine with which they are reproached. What is more, ask protestant ministers, that have lived and studied under them, how the Jesuits live: to be sure, they will not spare them, were it only to justify their leaving the society. I know the question has been put to many, and nothingcould ever be got from them, but that their conduct and morals were without exception. Barriere was not encouraged, as you pretend, by any Jesuit. The first notice of that attempt I had from a Jesuit: another told him, he would be damned if he dared to go upon any such design. Châtel never accused them, nor could any torments extort any charge against Varade, or any other Jesuit. If any one had been accused, how came you to spare him? The other Jesuit, that was seized, was taken up on account of some printed papers found in his chamber. After all, though a Jesuit had done that foul deed, which I am resolved to forget, must all the Jesuits suffer, must all the apostles be banished for one Judas? At that time God was pleased to humble and to save me, for which I give him thanks: he teaches me to forgive all offences; and I have done it, freely and willingly, for his sake. I pray daily for my enemies; so far am I from remembering what is past, as you advise me to do, not very like good Christians, for which I do not thank you.The Jesuits are natives of my kingdom, and born my subjects; I will not harbour any suspicion against those whom their birth has placed under my government; and, if there should be any danger of their communicating my secrets to the enemies of France, I will take care to let them know only what I think fit. Let me manage this affair; I have gone through many others much more difficult: and now I charge you to think of nothing farther, than doing what I bid and command you to do."
With such a speech in existence, is it not a disgrace to any man to cite against the society the remonstrance that gave occasion to it? I have done, then, with this writer's impure and disgraceful authorities; and I should here proceed immediately to the respectable, the noble, the brilliant list of authorities in favour of the Jesuits, but that I feel it proper previously to notice another attack upon them, from a very unexpected quarter, from one whom we are almost compelled to consider as an unbiassedassailant, since (besides being a gentleman and a member of the legislature) he does, in the very act of aiming the blow which he gives, profess the highest admiration, respect, and regard for them. "I am ready to admit," says sir John Hippisley, "the merit of that body of catholics, as far as they are exercised in the secular walk of philosophical and classical instruction; their schools and seminaries have been the most celebrated," &c. Again; "It pains me to speak, in these terms, of a community, comprehending many highly respected ecclesiastics, and, in the bosom of which, many of my valuable friends have received their education," &c. But sir John's "sense of duty overcomes his individual partialities[33]."
In consistency with these professions, sir John seems desirous of confining his objections to some particulars; but he was unable to conceal how willing he is to lay his axe to the tree, rootand branch; for he inserts a note to his speech, in which, not satisfied with protestant objections, he luxuriates in the citation of the "burning of more than fifty publications of Jesuit authors bythe common hangman;" in the naming of the authors, whose books were burned; and in recording the very terms of the sentence:seront lacerés et brulés, dans la cour du palais, par l'executeur de la haute justice(the high office translated by sir Johncommon hangman)comme seditieux, destructifs de toute principe de la morale Chretienne, enseignant une doctrine meurtrière et abominable, non-seulement contre la sureté de la vie des citoyens, mais même contre celle des personnes sacrées des souverains. To which is added, a reference to aPortuguesework, for a complete list of the books burned. So much for sir John'ssorrowin speaking, in the milder terms of his harangue, on his particular objections, and forthe preferencehe would have given to having his statementreservedfor the consideration of aselect committee. The reader, long before he arrives at thispreference of secret publicity, will have learned, from good authority, how to appreciate both the sentence and the judges that pronounced it; which sir John, by his recording it, appears not to have been able to do, in spite ofthe number of his friends, to whom he might have applied for information of the spirit that inflamed the parliament of Paris. But let us see the particular objections made by Sir John Hippisley. Sir John states, that the general of the order being a Russian, the acknowledgment of him by Jesuits in other states is an instance of dependence upon foreign jurisdiction. From this objection, it is to be presumed, that sir John credits the complete despotism, and other horrors, which have been attributed to the character of the general, as well as the prostitution of reason and virtue in all the members of the order, in consequence of the vow of obedience. And he evidently apprehends, that, if we go to war with Russia, the constitution of Great Britain will be endangered by the plots of Jesuits in this country! "We are," says he, "at this hour,on terms of amity with Russia; within how short a period was it otherwise?" In neither country is catholicism the established religion, yet sir John sees, that Jesuits may busy themselves so foully with Greeks and Lutherans, that the pope will be brought in. The objection is really absurd; but, on thedespotismof the general, and theblindobedience of the companions of the order, I shall make some remarks, when I consider the institute itself; at present, I shall only repeat, that these are calumnies to which no man would be a dupe, who had ever cast his eye over the pages of that almost inspired body of religious and moral statutes. The general, as well as the members of the community, is bound by those laws. A general congregation may be assembled, without his consent, and in defiance of him, to make laws against him: and "blind obedience is a sacrifice of passion, not of reason; Jesuits are to obey blindly, only when they see clearly, that they may do so without a crime, nay, without the slightest fault." The obedience which all religious, as well as Jesuits, paid to their chiefsuperior, who generally resided at Rome, was well understood to relate merely to their professional duties. It was first made an object of jealousy, exclusively with regard to the Jesuits, at the time that the parliaments were studying every mode of making them odious; and, before that time, the native country of their general was a matter of indifference. The native country of the pope was never alleged as a motive for rejecting his authority. The obedience of the Jesuits was voluntary; and they knew, from their institute, that it never could supersede the duty which they owed to the government under which they lived. Can sir John adduce a single instance of a Jesuit's betraying the country, or the government, which protected him? The first superiors of the French Jesuits were Spaniards and Italians. The superior of the Venetian Jesuits, during the famous contest between that state and Paul V, was a Frenchman.
In friendly consideration for the instructors of his numerous valuable friends, sir John informsthe House of Commons, that, though the empress of Russia countenanced the re-organization of the society within her dominions, "it was in a degraded state, to suit the views of her policy;" and, in a note, he informs the world at large, that "a correspondent of great consideration observed, that the empress was well pleased with the opportunity of snapping her fingers (narguer) at the courts of Versailles and Madrid, and showing them and the world at large, that she could render the institution tractable by her superior authority and management; that is, that she could tame wild beasts, whichtheywere forced to destroy[34]." It is not for me todivine by what means sir John, or his correspondent, obtained such possession of the secrets of Catherine's mind, as to be able to decide, in the face of the world, that her conduct, in saving the Jesuits, was guided by petty motives of private interest, and especially the secret desirede narguer, in plain English to jeer and jibe, to fleer and flout, the French and Spanish courts; but, if so, it evidently supposes some previous cause of dissatisfaction with those courts. What that cause was it is for sir John or his correspondent to state: to the generality of men, I believe, it remains a mystery. I am ignorant of any such cause, and, being in the class of ordinary observers, I ascribe the conduct of the empress to the more generous motives, which she and her two successors have avowed to the world. These are, the duty of providing for their catholic subjects suitable ministers and teachers; their knowledgethat the Jesuits of White Russia are such; their abhorrence of the injustice, which would strip them of their property, of their civil state and profession, and abolish their canonical existence, without any proof of crime or misdemeanour; and, finally, their royal word and faith pledged to maintain inviolably thestatus quoof the catholic religion and its ministers, as settled in thepacta conventaof the cession of White Russia to their dominion[35]. These motiveshave something in them honourable, generous, and dignified. I revere the empress, who, acting upon them, could at once read a lesson of justice to other monarchs, and rescue from destruction a remnant of the persecuted society. Instead of attributing to her the paltry spiritde narguer, I will, with sir John's permission, apply to her the praise which Cicero addressed to Cæsar, in his oration for Marcellus: "Nobilissimam familiam, jam ad paucos redactam, pene ab interitu vindicasti!" Sir John will not refuse her this compliment, when he discovers the extraordinary inaccuracy into which he has been betrayed by his informer. He asserts[36], that Catherine "secured the tractability of theserestless men by thesine qua nonof the residence of their general,a subject, within the state." It is true, that their general could not conveniently reside in any other state; but my information emboldens me to affirm, that no restraint whatever was laid upon the Jesuits, in the election of their generals; that they have already elected five in Russia, all of whom have beenforeigners. The three first were Poles, of whom one, named by sir John, F. Carew, was of British extraction. Their late general, Gruber, was an Austrian; the present superior is a Prussian, and is actually expected at Rome.
In a detail of restrictions he mentions the superintendence of the seminaries being consigned to the ministry of public inspection, and asserts, that priests of theGreeknational church are directed to attend the Jesuit colleges, to instruct the pupils of the Greek communion in religion. I am unacquainted with the weight of authority to be allowed to sir John's correspondent; but, certainly, the result of my inquiries differswidely from the information communicated by him. The Jesuits have, ever since their establishment in Russia, been treated with unsuspecting liberality. The integrity of their institute has been scrupulously maintained, and the authority given to the catholic archbishop of Mohilow has ever been exactly confined within the limits prescribed by the council of Trent. By a law of the present emperor, all colleges were subjected to the control of the university of Petersburgh. The Jesuits, feeling the inconvenience of this, soon had their own chief college of Polosk erected into a university, by which they became exempted from the temporary control. They have an establishment at Petersburgh, called the "College of Nobles," into which young noblemen only are admitted as pensioners, and these are educated in the regular collegiate discipline, whatever be their religion. They attend at divine service, and at public catechisms and instructions. The majority of them are of the national religion, and, if their parents or they themselves desire it, thesuperior of the Jesuits permits a priest of the Greek church to come to the college on Sunday, where he explains the national catechism to them in a private room. Beyond this he has nothing to do in the house. This practice may be known at court, but it was neither enjoined nor recommended by the court. This is the account I have collected of the Jesuits in Russia, and, I am persuaded, that they are not more restricted than the catholics in general, whom sir John appears to attack through the Jesuits, for in this long note (page 36), which seemed exclusively designed for the exposure of their Russian degradation, he slides unexpectedly into an exposure of "the restrictions, which attachgenerallyupon the exercise of the Roman catholic discipline." In this I have here no part to take, the general question has passed through abler hands than mine; my subject confines me to the society of the Jesuits, and in so doing calls upon me to notice the advertisement prefixed to sir John Hippisley's Speech. In that advertisement we find it to be sir John's opinion,that the bull of Pius VII, by which the order of Jesuits is restored, should not be published without the rescript of Clement XIV, by which it was suppressed, as a pendant; and, in a style of triumphant irony, he leaves it to the consideration of an author favourable to the society[37], on comparing the pontifical acts, "whether he can advantageously take the field against the memorable rescript of Ganganelli, and enter the lists with the living writersof his own communion, who espouse that deliberate pontifical act; for," says he, "it does not appear, that the denunciation pronounced by the bull of Pius VII has extinguished the ardour of the opponents of the constitution, which he has so solemnly re-embodied. Two publications on the subject have issued from the French press, since the date of this bull, namely,Du Pape et des Jesuites, and,Les Jesuites tels qu'ils ont été dans l'Ordre Politique, Religieux, et Moral.The first is ascribed to the pen of aPere de l'Oratoire, the other announced as the work ofM. S***, Ancien Magistrat. A perusal of these tracts," continues sir John, "and especially the brief of Pius VII, will lead to the discovery, whether the society have been most successfully attacked or defended by the French writers or by Mr. Plowden."
The Jesuits are more obliged to sir John for this position of the subject than, I believe, he meant they should be. I cannot judge of Mr. Plowden's success, not having seen his publication, but I think and hope to find it complete, from sir John's own statement in this advertisement. I am also unacquainted with the twooverpoweringFrench pamphlets alluded to; but their titles and authors are enough to convince me, that the new conspiracy against the Jesuits extends to France, that I am answering the pamphlets without seeing them, and that they are nothing more than thecrambe repetita, the dying echoes, of the Jansenists,parliamentarians, and jacobins. Can sir John have read the accounts, to be found in various authors, of the persecution of the Jesuits, and not suspect the very appellations ofFather of the Oratory, andAncient Magistrate? If he does me the honour to read this sketch, he will, I hope, know what value to set upon them. But what surprises me most is, that he does not seem to be aware, that the Jesuits had always enemiesin their own communion, for, by underlining these words, he shows, that he thinks it a strong proof of guilt when Roman catholics espouse the suppression of the order. A moment's reflection will bring to his mind, that the most powerful of the ancient conspiracy against the Jesuits were, at least, professed catholics; the Arnauds, the Pasquiers, the Monclars, the Chalotais; not to mention the D'Alemberts, Diderots, Condorcets, who, indeed, though educated catholics, were professed atheists or deists. The same may be said of Vatel, and some others cited by sir John. Vatel was a fanatical deist; Dupin a notorious Jansenist; Pereira a devoted creatureof Pombal. Envious men, and philosophers, do not spare others because they are of the same religious communion. If this motive prevailed, much sparring and abuse would be saved among protestants as well as among catholics. But, to come to the principal point of view, in which sir John's advertisement has happily placed the cause of the Jesuits.
History shows us, that, however extensive and complete the power of the popes may have been in former remote periods, they had a very difficult part to sustain in later times, and that they were often obliged to court the catholic monarchs, and to yield, that they might not be forced[38]. This was peculiarly the case with Clement XIV, whose philosophical name, Ganganelli, sir John significantly shoots at us through the rifle ofItalics, and it was hisavowed policy, even before his elevation to the pontificate, that the Jesuits were to be sacrificed, in spite of their innocence, in spite of their religious and moral virtues, in spite of his own attachment and approbation, to the necessity of preserving the favour of the monarchs of Europe. "Portugal," says he, "will never give up her opinion, in which I see other kingdoms that will confirm and support her. Kings no longer live unconnected with one another, as formerly; they form friendships, and act in concert; so that, if we are unfortunate enough to offend one, we may offend all; and, instead of having one enemy to deal with, we have all Europe upon us[39]."—"Little minds imagine, that one must be displeased with a certain religious society, if one does not support them in defiance of kings. But, besides that resisting the potentates would only multiply storms for them, one would not, through partiality to them, embroil oneself with all the catholic princes[40]." This is pretty plainlanguage, but what follows is in more direct terms, and, I think, is a decisive proof of the motives, which influenced the writer in the suppression of the Jesuits, when the tiara was placed upon his head: "Now it is, that we must make use of that wisdom of the serpent which Jesus Christ recommends to his apostles. It is no doubt grievous, that a religious brotherhood intended for colleges, seminaries, and missions, and who have written much on the truths of religion, should be deserted at a time when incredulity has broken loose with fury against the religious orders; but the question to be decided before God is, whether it is better to contend with the sovereigns than to give up a religious society. For my part, I think, on seeing the storm that gathers howling from all quarters, and which we perceive already over our heads, that it is right for us to act ourselves without waiting, and to sacrifice what is most agreeable rather than incur the anger of the sovereigns, which we cannot too much dread. Let our holy father,and his secretary of state, love the Jesuits sincerely, I subscribe with all my heart to the attachment they have for the society; but I shall always say, notwithstanding my veneration for St. Ignatius, and the esteem in which his disciples are held, that it is very dangerous, nay, very rash, to, support the Jesuits in the present circumstances[41]." These sentiments of cardinal Ganganelli would not serve well for a pendant to the brief of Clement XIV, yet, for the sake of truth and justice, they should be always printed together, and go down side by side to posterity. Where now is "the formidable array of pontiffs," which show that Ganganelli "is not the solitary impugner," among popes, of the order of Jesuits? Ganganelli tells you, that they were tossed on a stormy sea, where they were obliged to manage their sails dexterously, that they might not sink themselves; and, in the very rescript which sir John has hung by the side of Pius VII's bullin his appendix, he declares, that it blew so hard from the four quarters, France, Spain, Portugal and Sicily (see page 24), that he was under the necessity of throwing the Jesuits overboard: "Our dear sons in Jesus Christ," says he, "having made known theirdemandsandwillsin this matter."
Clement XIV vainly flattered himself, that, by making ample concessions to the importunity of the combined ministers, by persecuting the Jesuits in detail, contrary to his own conviction, he should, in the end, escape the necessity of crushing them altogether. It was the policy of Pontius Pilate. His whole reign was one series of vexatious treatment; even outrages against them. From the first day of his pontificate they were the only Christians excluded from access to the common father. His condescension only betrayed his weakness, and enhardened the ministerial conspirators. When, at length, he found it impossible to resist them, without incurring the loss of his states, "he gave sentence,that it should be as they required[42]." He resorted to the principle of the high priest, in St. John, chap. ii, verse 50, the expediency of which is so clearly announced in his Letters[43]. But here three things sorely distressed him: the incongruity and injustice of condemning the Jesuits without a trial, which he knew the ministers would not permit; the approbation of their institute by the council of Trent; and the concurring approbation of the order by nearly twenty popes, especially the very recent constitution, or bull, of his immediate predecessor, Clement XIII, solemnly published, and received by the whole church. The applicants for the destruction of the order undertook to remove his scruples.
I am obliged to sir John for drawing my attention to Ganganelli's brief, which I might otherwise have passed over without muchscrutiny. He is of opinion, that it should accompany the bull of the reigning pontiff; but some connoisseurs may think, that it will show to more advantage exhibited between the just mentioned bullapostolicumof Clement XIII and that of Pius VII: it would thus have a pendant on each side, eliciting, by a double contrast, all the effects of art. The bull apostolicum formed a principal objection to the grand plan of destruction, not easy to be evaded. It was so recent, so public, so solemn, so decisive. It was a distinct and specific approbation and confirmation of the society of Jesus; it repeated the sentiments of all popes from Paul III; it was solicited by hundreds of bishops; it was formally communicated to the college of cardinals, and was applauded by them all; it was accepted by every catholic bishop; it had every character of a formal judgment of the whole catholic church. Clement XIV and his advisers dared not to contradict it by another bull; it would have been a great scandal. The cardinals could not have concurred in it. The inferior,and less authoritative, mode ofbrief, or private letter, or rescript, in which it was not usual to consult the cardinals, was adopted. In this, the difficulty presented by the apostolicum of Clement XIII is overleaped in a short and peremptory way, by an absurd declaration of its having beenextorted rather than granted, without any proof, and in defiance of the number of circumstances which demonstrate the contrary. As sir John appears to be unacquainted with this famous constitution of Clement XIII, published in the beginning of 1765, and as it is perhaps the best written official document which Rome has, for many years, sent forth, it shall be inserted in the Appendix in its original language[44].
The more I consider Ganganelli's rescript, the more am I surprised at the pitiful attempts made to lay down something like an apology for injustice, and the more am I disgusted with its want of principle. It opens with a longnarrationof the suppression of various small religious associations by ancient popes, but it leaves us quite in the dark as to the justice or injustice of those several suppressions. It informs us, that several complaints had been made, at several times, to several popes, of the Jesuits; but it omits to tell us, that those complaints had always been either rejected, or refuted, or disregarded, by those several popes, whose public acts attest that they were, one and all, friends and supporters of the society[45]. The brief then recites thejus, or leading maxim, on which the whole procedure hinges, and which, in spite ofthe Roman canon, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, solves the pope's first difficulty, or scruple, of punishing without trial: it is this; thatthe slow and fallible method of proceeding before courts of justice must be avoided; thatreliance must be placedWHOLLYon that plenitude of power, which popes possess in so eminent a degree, as vicars of Christ upon earth, and as sovereign moderators of the Christian republic; and thatregular orders, which they propose to suppress, ought not to be allowedthe faculty of producing any arguments in their defence, or of clearing themselves from the heavy accusations brought against them. These are the words of the brief, as given by sir John in the translation of it in the Appendix to his Speech; in other words,the accused may be punished without being heard. This requires no comment; every British heart will suggest a just one.
Let us now see how Ganganelli gets over the difficulty arising from the approbation of the council of Trent. To the eternal disgrace ofthis brief, then, we find the operative or suppressing clause made to depend upon a paltry sophism. Stating thedemandsandwishesof his dear sons, the kings and ministers, with theadditionof pressing solicitations from some bishops and other persons, Clement, for a salvo to his conscience, declares (page 25), "that to choose the wisest course, in an affair of so much importance, he determined not to be precipitate, but to take due time toexamine attentively,weigh carefully, andwisely debateupon it." What was done? "First of all," continues the brief, "we proposed to examine upon what grounds rested the common opinion, that the institute of the clerks of the company of Jesus had been approved and confirmed in a special manner by the council of Trent! And we found, that, in the said council, nothing more was done, with regard to the said society, than to except it from the general decree respecting other orders. The same council declared, thatit meant not to make any change or innovation in the government of the clerks of the company of Jesus, thatthey might not be hindered from being useful to God and his church, according to the intent of the pious institute approved by the holy see." If the lines in italics are not an especial approval and confirmation of the institute, then must I confess, that I know not the meaning of the wordsapprovalandconfirmation. To my understanding they convey a most decided approbation and confirmation of the institute. Well, what succeeds theimprimis? What does the pontiff next examine, weigh, and debate attentively, carefully, and wisely? The reader will look in vain for the second head of wise deliberation; the actuating assertion immediately follows: "actuated byso manyand important considerations," &c. &c., andimpelled by fear, for that is the import of the following sentences, "WE DO SUPPRESS AND ABOLISH THE SAID COMPANY." The only possible apology, that can be made for Clement, in this rescript, is, that he acted, as lawyers term it, under duress. After his own avowal, while a cardinal, can any man doubt, that heimagined that the intrigues going on in France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily, against the Jesuits, would prove fatal to the power of Rome, if the society were protected? The whole of the preamble of his rescript consists of the approbation of his predecessors, and the appeals of the intriguers of the nations around him against the Jesuits. At last, theInquisition[46]of Spain (see page 20), press so strongly, that Sixtus V determines to examine the matter; but he is saved the misfortune by death, and his successor, Gregory XIV, approves of the institution of the society in its utmost extent, confirms their privileges, and ordains that, under pain of excommunication, all proceedings against the society should be quashed (page 21). In short, neither in the multifarious preamble, nor in the short actuating clause, does Clement XIV once advance an opinion of hisown adverse to the society; but throughout lends himself to the representations of foreign cabals, to which he at last confessedly sacrifices them.
All, then, that this rescript proves is, that powerful parties prevailed, in certain states, against the Jesuits, and that Clement XIV, notwithstanding theapprovalandconfirmationof the council of Trent, evinced by their declaration, as above cited; notwithstanding the approval and confirmation of successive popes; notwithstanding his own approval and regret (all clearly inserted in this rescript); found himself compelled, by the pressure of unjust and arbitrary power, to withhold his confirmation, to suppress and abolish a society, to whom he knew it was doubtful, whether religion and piety or science and letters were more indebted.
Such is the analysis of the luminous brief of destruction, so triumphantly referred to by sir John Hippisley; such the sanction of peaceand amity with the philosophical ministers, Pombal, Choiseul, Aranda, &c. The pontifical domain was to be saved; the portions of it already seized, Avignon, Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, &c., to be restored; the turbulent Jesuits extinct, harmony and concord were to bless the earth! How were these glorious prospects realized? Every succeeding year involved the Roman see in fresh troubles: new invasions of its spiritual and temporal rights continued to distress the succeeding pontiff, Pius VI, and, at last, conducted him to death in a dungeon, although, to save his domain from the grasp of violence, he had consented, that Ganganelli's brief should subsist unaltered.
It is now evident, that the suppression of the Jesuits was the result of the conspiracy formed against them; in Spain and Sicily by the Inquisition, in Portugal by Pombal, and in France by the Jansenists, the parliaments, and philosophers: how just and wise we have seen; let us now inquire whence results their restorationby Pius VII. "The catholic world demands, with unanimous voice, the re-establishment of the society of Jesus. We daily receive, to this effect, the most pressing petitions, from our venerable brethren, the archbishops and bishops[47], and the most distinguished persons, especially since the abundant fruits, which this society has produced in the above countries (Russia and Sicily), have been generally known." There is a striking contrast between the simplicity and direct language of this bull, and the artful and complicated expositions with which Ganganelli labours in his brief to lull his own conscience, and to justify, in the sight of others, the act he thought to be necessary. And why is the re-establishment of the society demanded? From a hope, that they may counteract the evils, which the neglect of religious education has suffered to spread over the world, and from aconviction that they were put down by the disciples of a false philosophy combining with the vilest of passions. In regard to protestant countries, their principles of loyalty are conclusive in their favour; and, in spite of the popish plots, it has been proved, that their religious doctrines never led them, as a body, to interfere in political affairs. These motives for their re-establishment, and my last observation, naturally remind me, that it is time to state the authorities, so highly honourable to the society, which I have been induced to examine and collect; there are, however, two other circumstances mentioned by sir John Hippisley, which I cannot pass over without notice. He objects to students for the priesthood among the Jesuits being sent abroad, to Sicily, to obtain ordination, instead of receiving it at the hands of their own national prelates. It appears, by this, that sir John is not aware that, in an order, it is requisite to obtain ordination through a superior of the order.
In all religious orders, candidates for priesthood must be presented by their proper religious superior to some bishop. The prelate may examine the candidate; and, if he has no canonical objection, he promotes him to orders on the title of religious poverty; the superior, or the order, remaining answerable for his maintenance. But no priest of the regulars can assume any exercise of ministerial functions, in preaching, or administering sacraments, without licence of the diocesan prelate, who may examine, suspend, and correct him, incurring thus a certain responsibility. Of this subjection of regulars to the established prelates, surely, sir John must have been aware; why, then, endeavour to alarm us with the prospect of Jesuits colonizing in the south of Italy, for the purpose of overspreading these islands? I have reason, upon recent inquiry, to suspect, that sir John has been misled by his Sicilian informer, as to the voyagers for the priesthood; and the supposed system of seekingfurtive ordinations beyond the seas will vanish before a plain relation of a few trifling facts. In 1806 an ecclesiastical student,on account of his health, embarked for Naples in a neutral ship, which touched at Palermo, where he remained, having learned that Buonaparte had seized on Naples: he was joined, the next year, by another student, who went abroad from the same motive, that of health. To be of use to their catholic countrymen, whose number was daily increasing, by the arrival of new regiments, they entered into holy orders, though, it appears, they were not allowed to officiate as priests among them. These recovered their health, and returned home. In the course of the three ensuing years, one priest, and ten students, who were impressed with a strong desire to study in a catholic university, went also, at different times, to Palermo, where they experienced a similar disappointment in their zeal. Two of the students left Sicily before they were ordained, and one died before ordination, leaving nine, the whole numberordained. The priest also died abroad. So that, instead of nineteen, there were altogether only nine, who obtained orders: one of these is the distinguished president of the new seminary of education in Ireland. For the last six years, not one catholic student has had a thought of following their example. Such trifling occasional emigrations of a few students will neither alarm nor surprise those who know, that, for more than two centuries, the penal laws have driven all English and Irish catholics, who were not content to live in ignorance at home, to seek education abroad; that this had become an invariable custom; and that every year scores of British subjects went abroad.
Sir John also objects to the Jesuits' appropriating any pecuniary resource, arising from the wreck of their society, to the uses of a seminary of education; he thinks it opposite to the principle, which gave birth to the institution of Maynooth; and is for seizing, andbestowing on Maynooth, thirty thousand pounds of their money, which they are said to have generously transmitted to Ireland, for the establishment of a place of education (page 39 of the printed Speech). How would this agree with that spirit of humanity, benevolence, and hospitality, to say nothing at present of justice, which prompted the genius of Britain to give an asylum to these persecuted servants of God, against the relentless fury of jacobins and philosophers? Besides, the institution of Maynooth, and the establishment intended differ widely: the college of Maynooth is particularly designed for clerical education; that to which the thirty thousand pounds is to be devoted is to be a seminary for general learning; an establishment, which must be attended with most salutary consequences to Ireland, where it will prevent emigration of the catholic youth, and where, with religion and knowledge, it will undoubtedly confirm and spread the spirit ofloyalty. It would be, I was going to say, madness; it would surely be unwise, to check,on old worn-out prejudices, the happy growth of a spirit, which has, in that country, met much to struggle with, and only wants to be enlightened to show itself as firm and ardent as in any part of the empire.
After all, I have good grounds to know, that sir John is misinformed respecting the source of the gift of thirty thousand pounds to the new seminary:no money has been recently transmitted from the society here to Ireland. The sum, on which the new house of education is rising,was not secured by the Jesuits from the wreck of the society: it is, strictly, theprivate propertyof a free Briton. This, I am informed, on good authority, is the fact; but, supposing it had been saved by the Jesuits from the ruin of their continental establishments, from which they were so cruelly turned adrift, and plundered by despots, because they were Englishmen; nay, supposing every guinea of it had been coined at the mint ofking Nicolas of Paraguay, could this authorize sir John to assume the despoticprinciple of a foreign minister, a Pombal, a Choiseul, and to decide at once,de son chef, in the land of liberty, that his unoffending fellow subjects, who, under the safeguard of the laws, are prosecuting an honourable profession, shall again be stripped and subjected to arbitrary confiscation? If the Ganganellian maxim, that "the accused may be plundered without being heard," be tolerated at Rome, in the "plenitude of power, which the pope possesses, as moderator of the Christian republic," it is far otherwise in this happy land, where men, no longer persecuted for their religious opinions, maintaining theirswornallegiance to their king, are sure for their persons and property to find safety in the laws, and protection from the sovereign.
I have spoken of sir John Hippisley's opinions freely; I trust I have not done it coarsely. I was greatly surprised to find him taking the part he does. Of Clement XIV I feel inclined to speak more harshly than I have. I remember being pleased with his Letters when I was aboy, upon the same principle that I was pleased with the meeting of theEtats Generaux, in 1789, at Versailles, where I was a spectator: a philosophical pope, and a philosophical senate, were mentalbon bons, adapted to the puerile taste of my understanding; but, grown old, I have no relish for either. Ganganelli degraded the tiara, and helped to prepare the French revolution.
I now return to our authorities. I have anticipated several great names incidentally, while engaged in canvassing those cited against the Jesuits; to these I have now to add the empress Catherine of Russia; of many popes, Clement XIII in particular, and the very destroyer of the society, Clement XIV; M. D'Eguilles, president of the parliament of Thoulouse; the abbé Proyart, author of a work entitled,Louis XVI dethroné avant d'etre Roi; Montesquieu, Haller, Muratori, Buffon, Grotius, Leibnitz, Bacon, Frederick the Great, Johnson, Bausset, Richelieu, Raynal, Juan, and Ulloa; with a multitudeof historians and biographers, to say nothing of the Jesuit writers themselves. But the most striking testimony in favour of the society, is a formal judgment given by the bishops of France on certain articles proposed for their examination, by Louis XV, relative to the doctrine, the government, the conduct, and usefulness of the French Jesuits. How any man can withstand such an array of testimony, I am at a loss to conceive; and still more how he can venture, at this time of day, to arm himself with the calumnies and horrors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, to attack a body of men, and a code of regulations, nowise accountable for the errors and crimes of individuals, at periods when men, in general, were as inveterate on the score of religious doctrines, as they have lately been on that of liberty and equality; when the Catholic and the Hugonot were alike ferocious and cruel, in the maintenance of their respective systems, though they scarcely equalled the fury and the horrors demonstrated by the deists, atheists, and democratical despots, whopreceded the settled tyranny, which has been just overthrown by the united force of Europe. The Jesuits were, indeed, the great preachers of the Christian religion, such as it had been received for ages; but they are no more answerable for the opinions on regicide, murder, and other horrid doctrines of former distracted times, than are the Washingtons and Franklins for the atrocities of the Robespierres and Marats in our own days of political insanity.
It will perhaps be thought necessary, that I should give something more than the illustrious names I have cited; I shall therefore proceed to prove, that I have not pressed them into the cause of the Jesuits, but enrolled them on their voluntary appearance. I shall omit those, whom I have already incidentally quoted, and arrange the others in the order in which I have mentioned them.
CATHERINE II, OF RUSSIA.
Catherine, when at Mohiloff, found, that the people of that part of her dominions professed the catholic religion, and that they were very much attached to the order of Jesuits. She appointed a catholic archbishop of Mohiloff, and gave him a Jesuit as a coadjutor. She permitted, at the same time, the establishment of a seminary of Jesuits, the direction of which was confided to father Gabriel Denkiewitz, appointed vicar-general of his order. In the year 1783, she sent the archbishop of Mohiloff's coadjutor, whose name was Benelawski, to Rome, as minister from the court of Russia, who carried a letter from her to Pius VI, demanding the re-establishment of the society of Jesuits, which, though at the time disavowed at Petersburgh, through deference to the Greek Christians, was actually written with her own hand. The following passages are extracted from the letter: "I know, that your holiness is under considerableembarrassments. Your dignity cannot harmonize with politics, so long as politics are at variance with religion. The motives, which have induced me to grant protection to the Jesuits, are founded in reason and justice, as well as on the hope of their becoming useful to my states. This assemblage of peaceable and inoffensive men shall live in my empire, because, of all catholic societies, they are the best qualified to instruct my subjects, and to inspire them with sentiments of humanity and the genuine principles of the Christian religion. I am resolved to support these priests against every power whatever; and, in so doing, I only perform my duty, as I am their sovereign, and look upon them as faithful, useful, and innocent subjects. I am so much the more desirous of seeing four of them invested with the power of confirming at Moscow and Petersburgh, as the two catholic churches of those cities are confided to their care[48]." The pope made the circumstanceknown to the French and Spanish ambassadors, who consulted their respective courts, neither of which, however, chose openly to interfere. It was an embarrassing situation for Pius VI; the suppression of the order was too recent; he wished neither to treat the memory of Clement XIV with disrespect, nor to embroil himself with France or Spain; and, in complying with the request of Catherine, he acted with circumspection and without parade. In considering this event, an obvious remark presents itself: for upwards of thirty years past, the society of the Jesuits have been established in Russia, yet we hear nothing of that empire being disturbed either with religious or civil broils, fomented by them; though I should not be surprised, if, on reflection, the death of Paul were to be imputed, by the modern conspirators, to their machinations. On the contrary, the internal tranquillity of that country was never more apparent, and the improvement of the mind has made rapid strides. The placing of the Jesuits in her dominions is a proof of thesagacity of Catherine, and I doubt whether Russia was ever more indebted to any sovereign than for this step, which was at once magnanimous, wise, and popular.