1“All the disputes between España and Roma regarding the nature, extent, and limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions—commonly known by the name of theregaliasof the crown—are reflected in the continual conflicts with the nuncio, the inquisitor, and the confessor; and from them arose thepase regioand the disamortization [of corporation lands], in order to make themselves manifest in theexpedientefor the beatification of the venerable Palafox, and to endeavor to find a definitive solution in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Carlos I and Felipe II of Castilla alike considered themselves set apart by God to defend eternally the true faith, with the mission of guarding and protecting the Church; and, like the ancient Roman emperors, in temporal affairs they acknowledged no superiority or limitations on the earth. The king was regarded as a living law, a permanent tribunal, the supreme master and legitimate lord of all his vassals; in one word, the crown was looked upon as the defender of the Church. The conflict of the Middle Ages ended, España aspired to a double social ideal, unity of power and religious unity; and this thought produced concentration, and the desire to separate what was spiritual and concerned with dogma from what was temporal and belonging to the government of peoples. Two distinctideas strove together in the field of doctrine; one, supported by the submissions in former days of the Eastern Empire, claimed to subject temporal monarchs to the supreme political direction of the head of the Catholic Church; and the other, derived from primitive traditions, claimed that the Catholic sovereigns ought to exercise, equally with the pontiffs, the external government of the Church, as its natural protectors. A persistent and obstinate strife arose between the two ideas, and after several centuries the controversy was settled, by limiting the rights of the Holy See to that which concerned dogmas and the spiritual power, and leaving to the royal authority all that referred to discipline and the exercise of government, in whatever relates to the security of the State and the welfare of the people. It is this which with some unfitness has been calledregalÃas; and at bottom it has been nothing more than the recovery of the proper character of the civil power, and the demarcation of the attributes of the power of the Church and the State. This demarcation, the strife over which lasted for entire centuries, was recognized in España by the concordat of 1753, in which is declared the right of [ecclesiastical] patronage of the kings of España; and to it theexequatur, disamortization, and the reform of both the regular and secular clergy, served them as a complement.†(Danvila,Reinado de Carlos III, ii, pp. 270, 271.)Thepase regio(Latin,exequatur) above mentioned refers to the prerogative assumed by the Spanish kings of the right to “pass†or confirm papal edicts or briefs, or those issued by other foreign ecclesiastics, or by the superiors of religious orders, before these could be valid in the Spanish dominions; several instances of this have already been mentioned in documents of this series. “Disamortization†(a word which, as the standard English lexicons contain no single word which expresses exactly the idea conveyed in the Spanishdesamortización, we are obliged to coin for this purpose, simply transferring it, in English form, from the Spanish) means the act of setting free any lands which had been conveyed, in mortmain, to the corporations (mainly religious), that is, enabling other persons to acquire such lands. Theexequaturis called by Danvila (ii, p. 281) “the most transcendent of the regalÃas of the crown.â€â†‘2It may be noted that all these high ecclesiastics signed the reports of the Council justifying the expulsion of the Jesuits, and that the archbishop of Manila (Santa Justa) is cited in various documents as having counseled the king to banish that order from his dominions.↑3“It is known that the Society of Jesus was, more than a religious association, in reality a great mercantile company, from a very short time after its institution until its extinction by Clement XIV. Its vast commercial transactions in Europe, America, and Oceania furnished to it immense wealth; and, infatuated with their power and the dominion which they exercised over the minds of their ardent followers; having gained possession as they had done of the confessional and directing the consciences of kings and magnates; and strengthened by the affection (which they exploited with great ability) of women—upon whom they always have exercised, as they still do, a magnetic influence—the Jesuits considered themselves absolute masters of the world; and they devoted themselves to intervention in political affairs, managing with cautious skill political dealings in almost all countries, according to the degree in which these concerned their particular purposes. Their insolent and illegal acts, their despotism, their ambition, the iron yoke with which they oppressed both kings and peoples; their disputes with the other religious associations, who could not look with pleasure on the predominance and wealth of the new society which so audaciously gathered in the harvest from the fertile vineyard of the Lord; their dangerous maxims in regard to regicide, their demoralizing system of doctrine, their satanic pride and insatiable greed, their hypocrisy and corruption: all these raised against them a unanimous protest. Mistrust of them awoke in kings and peoples; men of sincere purpose and true Christian morals were alarmed; and on every side arose enemies of their order, and irrefutable proofs of their abominable aberrations were brought forward.†(Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142–146.)↑4See detailed account of the so-called “family compact†and the secret agreement which accompanied it, in Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 101–167. At the end he says: “The celebrated ‘family compact’ was never anaffaire de cÅ“ur, but an alliance offensive and defensive in order to check the progress of the British armsin Europa and America, and to dispute with England the maritime supremacy of which she had possessed herself …. The ‘family compact,’ and the secret agreement which completed it, were from the beginning an alliance offensive and defensive of España and France against Great Britain.â€â†‘5Montero y Vidal makes numerous citations (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142, 143, 147–159) from letters written to Pope Innocent X in 1647 and 1649 by the noted bishop of La Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, showing how great wealth and power the Jesuits had attained in Nueva España, their hatred toward him and their conspiracies and even open attacks against him for doing his official duty, and their lawless, scandalous, immoral, and irreligious acts, as he has seen them.↑6In November, 1779, letters were received by the Spanish government from their ambassador at Rome, asking that, in view of the poverty and suffering endured by the ex-Jesuits there, their pensions might be increased. Inquiries were made as to their numbers, with the following results; “On April 1, 1767, there existed in España 1,660 priests, 102 scholastics, and 965 coadjutors,making a total of 2,727. From the seven provinces of the Indias there arrived at the port of Santa MarÃa 1,396 priests, 327 scholastics, and 544 coadjutors, making a total of 2,267. The pensions of both classes amounted to 7,264,650 reals. On April 1, 1779, there existed in Italia 1,274 priests and scholastics, and 664 coadjutors belonging to the four provinces of España [i.e., those of the Jesuit order in that country, being designated as Toledo, Castilla, AndalucÃa, and Aragón], and, confined in them, sixteen priests and five coadjutors, the life-pensions of all these amounting to 2,852,600 reals; and from the seven provinces of Indias there were 1,197 priests and 279 coadjutors, the yearly sum of whose pensions was 2,255,750 reals, including those assigned to the Jesuits confined in España. Thus the difference between 1767 and 1779 was that of 2,151,300 reals, on account of the flight to foreign lands or the [ecclesiastical] suspension of 242 priests, 4 scholastics, and 145 coadjutors, and the death of 1,038 priests and 516 coadjutors. The twelve colleges and the procuradorÃa of the provinces of Méjico and of Filipinas, and of the college of Navarra, yielded 3,665,133 reals, 15 maravedÃs, leaving a surplus of 1,111,408 reals. The expenses for pensions, maintenance in España, clothing, and others which had arisen with the ex-Jesuits from the Indias, up to the end of June, 1779, reached the sum of 45,321,439 reals, 20 maravedÃs; and adding to this 3,086,767 reals, 14 maravedÃs, the value of a certain contribution given by order of his Majesty to the royal hospital of this court, and the payment of debts contracted by some colleges in the Indias, the total is 48,408,207 reals. The temporalities of the Indias were therefore indebted to those of España in 7,077,836 reals, 16 2–3 maravedÃs.†In view of these statistics, the Council did not feel able to increase the amount of the pensions, but agreed to send to the Spanish ambassador at Rome the sum of 1,500,000 reals, to be distributed among the ex-Jesuits in such manner as would best relieve their poverty. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 614, 615.)(The above passage is carefully copied from Danvila, but there are some discrepancies in the figures given; these cannot be verified, of course, without reference to the original document in the Simancas archives cited by the author. These discrepancies are in all probability due to careless proof-reading, some instances of which we have seen in Danvila’s admirable work.)“Some of the expelled [Jesuits] did not content themselves with removing [from Corsica] to the States of the Church andthe Italian cities, but ventured to make their appearance in Barcelona and Gerona; and when the Council committee had notice of this fact they assembled, and decided that the observance of the pragmatic sanction [for the expulsion] ought to be decreed, imposing the penalty of death on the secular lay-brothers, and perpetual confinement on those ordainedin sacris.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 114, 115, 117.) The “suspension†referred to above evidently applies to certain persons who returned to secular life and occupations, some coadjutors even marrying wives.↑7It has been seen (note 135,ante) that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of the visitor Palafox; and the proposal to canonize him, which was made by Carlos III to the pope in 1760, aroused the strong opposition of that order. His letters to the pope in 1647 and 1649 had led to papal decrees enforcing the episcopal authority against the encroachments of the Jesuits, which, after attempting to oppose them, the latter were finally compelled to obey. It was not until 1694 that the ecclesiastical authorities began to examine the writings of Palafox; and it appears that his letter of 1649 was prohibited in theIndex expurgatoriusin 1707 and 1747, and that by an edict of the Inquisition of May 13, 1759 certain letters attributed to him were seized and publicly burned by the hangman—not because there was in them anything deserving theological censure, but on merely technical charges of having been published without the necessary “red tape†prescribed in such cases, and “in order to renew controversies already finished, with the sole object of calumniating and discrediting among the faithful the order of the Society of Jesus, against the intention and good fame of that prelate to whom they were attributed.†The Spanish rulers Felipe V and Fernando VI, and later Carlos III, had all at various times made efforts to have Palafox’s writings examined by the Roman Congregation of Rites; for they regarded him as one of the defenders of the royal right of patronage in America. This was finally accomplished, the Congregation declaring unanimously that they found therein nothing contrary to the faith or to good morals, or to sound doctrine; and that the process for his beatification might now be undertaken. The Pope approved this finding, on December 9, 1760, and on February 5 following the supreme Inquisition of Spain published a decree annulling the above-mentioned prohibitions of his writings. It was thereupon made known to the Spanish ministers that in the Council of the Indias no document remained which favored the cause of Palafox; the records had been cut out and carried away. This mutilation was ascribed to the Jesuits. The beatification of Palafox wasapproved by the Congregation of Rites, and the pope confirmed this on September 6, 1766; but its execution forthwith encountered delays, showing that his enemies in Rome were the same whom he had pointed out in his letter of 1649. (Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 255–270.)↑8This decree, “if we view the occasion of its publication, and the terms in which it is expressed, accepted in the name of the court of Roma the war to which all the Catholic nations were provoking it; and accepted that war without sufficient power to defend itself. The attitude of France, España, Portugal, Naples, and Parma, and later of Vienna, was the result of a new policy which strove to limit the power of the pontificate and to take away its temporal power; and the latter ought not to have begun hostilities without weighing well the consequences, and, above all, without estimating the forces on which it might depend for the combat. The monitory decree of Parma, as the brief of January 30 is called, in which his Holiness protested against all the measures which the Catholic courts were putting into execution, was the origin and cause of the expulsion of the Jesuits by the duchies of Parma and Plasencia; of the prohibition of the circulation in the Catholic states of the bullIn cÅ“na Dominiand of obedience to it; of the reëstablishment in those states of thepase regio, which had been suspended in España since 1763; of barring from circulation the monitory decree, because it was considered hostile to the regalÃas of the crown and to the rights of the sovereigns; of the publication by order of the Council, and at the cost of the Spanish government, of the ‘Imperial judgment,’ in which the rights of the Holy See were limited exclusively to the faith, to matters of dogma, and to purely spiritual matters; of the reprisals with which the pope was threatened if he did not revoke the monitory decree; ofthe occupation of Benevento and Pontecorbo (which was an actual outbreak of hostilities), and the attempt to do the same with Castro and Ronciglione; of a mutual understanding between all the courts hostile to the Holy See; and of the establishment of a general agreement that the extinction of the Society of Jesus would be an indispensable condition for the continuance of correspondence with the court of Roma. The monitory decree of January 30 will signify, in the view of history, the termination of the secular dispute which Roma kept up during two centuries; the triumph of a new policy; and the menace against the temporal power of the popes, which constituted the essential part of the controversy. With the monitory decree, Roma was conquered, and the revolution made rapid advance.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 228–230.)↑9Danvila’s researches in the archives of Simancas brought to light the opinions of the Spanish prelates on the expulsion of the Jesuits from that country; out of sixty, forty-six approved the suppression of the Jesuit order, eight were opposed to it, and six excused themselves from expressing their opinions. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 428, 429.)↑10Among the charges made in this paper is the following: “From Filipinas comes evidence of not only their predictions against the government, but the illicit communication of their provincial with the English commander during the occupation of Manila.â€â†‘11A note by Crétineau-Joly (p. 237) declares that Alva, when on his death-bed, confessed to Felipe Bertram, bishop of Salamanca, the general of the Inquisition, that he “was one of the authors of the uprising of 1766, having incited it in hatred to the Jesuits, and in order to cause it to be imputed to them. He also avowed that he had composed a great part of the supposedletter by the general of the Jesuits against the king of Spain.†A Protestant writer is cited as saying that Alva made this same declaration to Carlos III, in writing.↑12Spanish,capas y sombreros; an edict had been issued forbidding these to be worn by the inhabitants of Madrid.↑13Alluding to accusations against the personal character of Isabel Farnese, Carlos’s mother and wife of Felipe V.↑14“Don Joseph Raon was one of the most shrewd of the governors of Manila in enriching himself without causing any one to complain; but he did nothing whatever for the service of the king. In 1768, Manila was at the same point where the English left it in 1763, without cannon or gunpowder, the troops ill-fed and ill-paid.†(Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 167.) It will be remembered that the French scientist was in Manila at the same time when Raón was.↑15InPolÃtica de España en Filipinas, 1894, pp. 175, 176, Retana describes a collection of documents which he had recently acquired, relating to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the islands. Among these were the officialexpedientes, and a series which contained the inventories of all the property which the Jesuits possessed. The list of the papers and letters found in the college of San Ignacio formed a folio volume of more than 600 pages. (There was also a list of all the books which the Jesuits kept for sale. Among these were more than 200 copies of Noceda’sDiccionario, the first edition, of which copies are now considered exceedingly rare. “In this inventory appear books of which I believe not a single copy is now in existence.â€) The collection thus acquired by Retana contained original letters from Anda and Santa Justa to Conde de Aranda, and others by the Jesuit Clain, Camacho, Raón, Anda, Basco, and other noted persons. At the time, according to Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 222) this collection, which contained more than 20,000 folios, was deposited in the Colegio de Agustinos at Valladolid.↑16It is interesting to compare with this episode that of the banishment of the French Jesuits in Louisiana (1763), as related by Father François P. Watrin; seeJesuit Relations and Allied Documents, lxx (Cleveland, 1900), pp. 211–301. Some of those exiles took refuge in the Spanish-American colonies; others proceeded to France, but found that their order was being driven out of that country.↑17Le Gentil states (Voyage, ii, p. 167) that Cosio was banished to Africa.↑18Doubtless referring to appraisals and inventories made afterward by Anda, who caused this to be done with great exactness.↑19Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, ii, p. 250) of the great college of San Ignacio: “It is said that the building of this church of the Society, its great convent, and the college of San Jose (which it has close by) cost 150,000 pesos;†also that it occupied 34,000 square varas of space (or more than six acres).↑20At a fiesta held in the Jesuit church at Manila, in 1623 the statues of canonized Jesuits were placed at the altar. “Their garments were richly embroidered with gold and silver thread in intricate designs, and were all covered with jewels—diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, seed-pearls, and other precious stones—arranged in such a manner that their luster and varied colors gave them a most pleasing and beautiful appearance. On the image of St. Xavier were faithfully counted more than 15,000 precious stones and pearls, among them more than a thousand diamonds. On that of St. Ignatius there were more than 20,000 jewels, and of these over 800 were diamonds.†(Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 41b, 42.)↑21A royal decree printed at Lima in 1777 orders the presidents and auditors of the audiencias in those regions and Filipinas, and archbishops and bishops in all the Spanish dominions beyond the seas, to exercise great care and vigilance that no person shall talk, write, or argue about the extinction of the Society of Jesus, or the causes which led to it.↑22There is a play on words here,saludmeaning both “greeting†and “salvation.â€â†‘23Contemporaneous documents preserved with this decree by Santa Justa show that the imprints to which he refers were as follows (their titles being here translated):1. “Instruction to the princes regarding the policy of the Jesuit fathers, illustrated with extensive notes, and translated from the Italian into Portuguese, and now into Castilian, with a supplement on the orthodox belief of the Jesuits. With permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the printing-office of Pantaleon Azuar, Arenal street, the house of his Excellency theDuke de Arcos. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in the bookstore of Joseph Botanero on the said street of Arenal, corner of Zarsa street.â€2. “Reflections on the memorial presented to his Holiness Clement XIII by the general of the Jesuits, in which are related various deeds of the superiors and missionaries of that order in all parts of the world, intended to frustrate the measures of the popes against their proceedings and doctrines, but which demonstrate the absolute incorrigibleness of that body. Translated from the Italian. Madrid; by Joachim de Ibarra. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in Francisco Fernandez street, in front of the steps of San Phelipe el Real.â€3. “Continuation of the portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and illustrious Catholics, etc. Third edition, with permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the shop of the widow of Ericeo Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€4. “Portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and most illustrious Catholics: authorized judgment formed of the Jesuits, with authentic and undeniable testimonies by the greatest and most distinguished men of both Church and State, from the year 1540, in which their order was founded, until 1650. Translated from the Portuguese into Castilian, in order to banish the obstinate prejudices and voluntary blindness of many unwary and deluded persons who close their eyes against the beauteous splendor of the truth. Third edition. With permission of the authorities, at Madrid. At the shop of the widow of Elicio Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€â†‘24It seems that Auditor Basaraz prohibited the circulation of these books, in which he was supported by Raón; consequently the books that had been seized were held back, notwithstanding Santa Justa’s protest, and the matter was not settled in court, as it should have been. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 196, 224.)↑25Referring to the Order of St. Francis, since many of its members were martyred in the Japanese persecutions. (About the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits, their enemies declared that, while martyrs abounded in the other religious orders, the Jesuits escaped that fate among the heathen.) In the other missions, the allusion is to the noted controversy over the Chinese rites, in which the Jesuits were accused of undue laxity and connivance with heathen customs; the same accusation was also made against them in some of the American missions.↑
1“All the disputes between España and Roma regarding the nature, extent, and limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions—commonly known by the name of theregaliasof the crown—are reflected in the continual conflicts with the nuncio, the inquisitor, and the confessor; and from them arose thepase regioand the disamortization [of corporation lands], in order to make themselves manifest in theexpedientefor the beatification of the venerable Palafox, and to endeavor to find a definitive solution in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Carlos I and Felipe II of Castilla alike considered themselves set apart by God to defend eternally the true faith, with the mission of guarding and protecting the Church; and, like the ancient Roman emperors, in temporal affairs they acknowledged no superiority or limitations on the earth. The king was regarded as a living law, a permanent tribunal, the supreme master and legitimate lord of all his vassals; in one word, the crown was looked upon as the defender of the Church. The conflict of the Middle Ages ended, España aspired to a double social ideal, unity of power and religious unity; and this thought produced concentration, and the desire to separate what was spiritual and concerned with dogma from what was temporal and belonging to the government of peoples. Two distinctideas strove together in the field of doctrine; one, supported by the submissions in former days of the Eastern Empire, claimed to subject temporal monarchs to the supreme political direction of the head of the Catholic Church; and the other, derived from primitive traditions, claimed that the Catholic sovereigns ought to exercise, equally with the pontiffs, the external government of the Church, as its natural protectors. A persistent and obstinate strife arose between the two ideas, and after several centuries the controversy was settled, by limiting the rights of the Holy See to that which concerned dogmas and the spiritual power, and leaving to the royal authority all that referred to discipline and the exercise of government, in whatever relates to the security of the State and the welfare of the people. It is this which with some unfitness has been calledregalÃas; and at bottom it has been nothing more than the recovery of the proper character of the civil power, and the demarcation of the attributes of the power of the Church and the State. This demarcation, the strife over which lasted for entire centuries, was recognized in España by the concordat of 1753, in which is declared the right of [ecclesiastical] patronage of the kings of España; and to it theexequatur, disamortization, and the reform of both the regular and secular clergy, served them as a complement.†(Danvila,Reinado de Carlos III, ii, pp. 270, 271.)Thepase regio(Latin,exequatur) above mentioned refers to the prerogative assumed by the Spanish kings of the right to “pass†or confirm papal edicts or briefs, or those issued by other foreign ecclesiastics, or by the superiors of religious orders, before these could be valid in the Spanish dominions; several instances of this have already been mentioned in documents of this series. “Disamortization†(a word which, as the standard English lexicons contain no single word which expresses exactly the idea conveyed in the Spanishdesamortización, we are obliged to coin for this purpose, simply transferring it, in English form, from the Spanish) means the act of setting free any lands which had been conveyed, in mortmain, to the corporations (mainly religious), that is, enabling other persons to acquire such lands. Theexequaturis called by Danvila (ii, p. 281) “the most transcendent of the regalÃas of the crown.â€â†‘2It may be noted that all these high ecclesiastics signed the reports of the Council justifying the expulsion of the Jesuits, and that the archbishop of Manila (Santa Justa) is cited in various documents as having counseled the king to banish that order from his dominions.↑3“It is known that the Society of Jesus was, more than a religious association, in reality a great mercantile company, from a very short time after its institution until its extinction by Clement XIV. Its vast commercial transactions in Europe, America, and Oceania furnished to it immense wealth; and, infatuated with their power and the dominion which they exercised over the minds of their ardent followers; having gained possession as they had done of the confessional and directing the consciences of kings and magnates; and strengthened by the affection (which they exploited with great ability) of women—upon whom they always have exercised, as they still do, a magnetic influence—the Jesuits considered themselves absolute masters of the world; and they devoted themselves to intervention in political affairs, managing with cautious skill political dealings in almost all countries, according to the degree in which these concerned their particular purposes. Their insolent and illegal acts, their despotism, their ambition, the iron yoke with which they oppressed both kings and peoples; their disputes with the other religious associations, who could not look with pleasure on the predominance and wealth of the new society which so audaciously gathered in the harvest from the fertile vineyard of the Lord; their dangerous maxims in regard to regicide, their demoralizing system of doctrine, their satanic pride and insatiable greed, their hypocrisy and corruption: all these raised against them a unanimous protest. Mistrust of them awoke in kings and peoples; men of sincere purpose and true Christian morals were alarmed; and on every side arose enemies of their order, and irrefutable proofs of their abominable aberrations were brought forward.†(Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142–146.)↑4See detailed account of the so-called “family compact†and the secret agreement which accompanied it, in Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 101–167. At the end he says: “The celebrated ‘family compact’ was never anaffaire de cÅ“ur, but an alliance offensive and defensive in order to check the progress of the British armsin Europa and America, and to dispute with England the maritime supremacy of which she had possessed herself …. The ‘family compact,’ and the secret agreement which completed it, were from the beginning an alliance offensive and defensive of España and France against Great Britain.â€â†‘5Montero y Vidal makes numerous citations (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142, 143, 147–159) from letters written to Pope Innocent X in 1647 and 1649 by the noted bishop of La Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, showing how great wealth and power the Jesuits had attained in Nueva España, their hatred toward him and their conspiracies and even open attacks against him for doing his official duty, and their lawless, scandalous, immoral, and irreligious acts, as he has seen them.↑6In November, 1779, letters were received by the Spanish government from their ambassador at Rome, asking that, in view of the poverty and suffering endured by the ex-Jesuits there, their pensions might be increased. Inquiries were made as to their numbers, with the following results; “On April 1, 1767, there existed in España 1,660 priests, 102 scholastics, and 965 coadjutors,making a total of 2,727. From the seven provinces of the Indias there arrived at the port of Santa MarÃa 1,396 priests, 327 scholastics, and 544 coadjutors, making a total of 2,267. The pensions of both classes amounted to 7,264,650 reals. On April 1, 1779, there existed in Italia 1,274 priests and scholastics, and 664 coadjutors belonging to the four provinces of España [i.e., those of the Jesuit order in that country, being designated as Toledo, Castilla, AndalucÃa, and Aragón], and, confined in them, sixteen priests and five coadjutors, the life-pensions of all these amounting to 2,852,600 reals; and from the seven provinces of Indias there were 1,197 priests and 279 coadjutors, the yearly sum of whose pensions was 2,255,750 reals, including those assigned to the Jesuits confined in España. Thus the difference between 1767 and 1779 was that of 2,151,300 reals, on account of the flight to foreign lands or the [ecclesiastical] suspension of 242 priests, 4 scholastics, and 145 coadjutors, and the death of 1,038 priests and 516 coadjutors. The twelve colleges and the procuradorÃa of the provinces of Méjico and of Filipinas, and of the college of Navarra, yielded 3,665,133 reals, 15 maravedÃs, leaving a surplus of 1,111,408 reals. The expenses for pensions, maintenance in España, clothing, and others which had arisen with the ex-Jesuits from the Indias, up to the end of June, 1779, reached the sum of 45,321,439 reals, 20 maravedÃs; and adding to this 3,086,767 reals, 14 maravedÃs, the value of a certain contribution given by order of his Majesty to the royal hospital of this court, and the payment of debts contracted by some colleges in the Indias, the total is 48,408,207 reals. The temporalities of the Indias were therefore indebted to those of España in 7,077,836 reals, 16 2–3 maravedÃs.†In view of these statistics, the Council did not feel able to increase the amount of the pensions, but agreed to send to the Spanish ambassador at Rome the sum of 1,500,000 reals, to be distributed among the ex-Jesuits in such manner as would best relieve their poverty. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 614, 615.)(The above passage is carefully copied from Danvila, but there are some discrepancies in the figures given; these cannot be verified, of course, without reference to the original document in the Simancas archives cited by the author. These discrepancies are in all probability due to careless proof-reading, some instances of which we have seen in Danvila’s admirable work.)“Some of the expelled [Jesuits] did not content themselves with removing [from Corsica] to the States of the Church andthe Italian cities, but ventured to make their appearance in Barcelona and Gerona; and when the Council committee had notice of this fact they assembled, and decided that the observance of the pragmatic sanction [for the expulsion] ought to be decreed, imposing the penalty of death on the secular lay-brothers, and perpetual confinement on those ordainedin sacris.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 114, 115, 117.) The “suspension†referred to above evidently applies to certain persons who returned to secular life and occupations, some coadjutors even marrying wives.↑7It has been seen (note 135,ante) that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of the visitor Palafox; and the proposal to canonize him, which was made by Carlos III to the pope in 1760, aroused the strong opposition of that order. His letters to the pope in 1647 and 1649 had led to papal decrees enforcing the episcopal authority against the encroachments of the Jesuits, which, after attempting to oppose them, the latter were finally compelled to obey. It was not until 1694 that the ecclesiastical authorities began to examine the writings of Palafox; and it appears that his letter of 1649 was prohibited in theIndex expurgatoriusin 1707 and 1747, and that by an edict of the Inquisition of May 13, 1759 certain letters attributed to him were seized and publicly burned by the hangman—not because there was in them anything deserving theological censure, but on merely technical charges of having been published without the necessary “red tape†prescribed in such cases, and “in order to renew controversies already finished, with the sole object of calumniating and discrediting among the faithful the order of the Society of Jesus, against the intention and good fame of that prelate to whom they were attributed.†The Spanish rulers Felipe V and Fernando VI, and later Carlos III, had all at various times made efforts to have Palafox’s writings examined by the Roman Congregation of Rites; for they regarded him as one of the defenders of the royal right of patronage in America. This was finally accomplished, the Congregation declaring unanimously that they found therein nothing contrary to the faith or to good morals, or to sound doctrine; and that the process for his beatification might now be undertaken. The Pope approved this finding, on December 9, 1760, and on February 5 following the supreme Inquisition of Spain published a decree annulling the above-mentioned prohibitions of his writings. It was thereupon made known to the Spanish ministers that in the Council of the Indias no document remained which favored the cause of Palafox; the records had been cut out and carried away. This mutilation was ascribed to the Jesuits. The beatification of Palafox wasapproved by the Congregation of Rites, and the pope confirmed this on September 6, 1766; but its execution forthwith encountered delays, showing that his enemies in Rome were the same whom he had pointed out in his letter of 1649. (Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 255–270.)↑8This decree, “if we view the occasion of its publication, and the terms in which it is expressed, accepted in the name of the court of Roma the war to which all the Catholic nations were provoking it; and accepted that war without sufficient power to defend itself. The attitude of France, España, Portugal, Naples, and Parma, and later of Vienna, was the result of a new policy which strove to limit the power of the pontificate and to take away its temporal power; and the latter ought not to have begun hostilities without weighing well the consequences, and, above all, without estimating the forces on which it might depend for the combat. The monitory decree of Parma, as the brief of January 30 is called, in which his Holiness protested against all the measures which the Catholic courts were putting into execution, was the origin and cause of the expulsion of the Jesuits by the duchies of Parma and Plasencia; of the prohibition of the circulation in the Catholic states of the bullIn cÅ“na Dominiand of obedience to it; of the reëstablishment in those states of thepase regio, which had been suspended in España since 1763; of barring from circulation the monitory decree, because it was considered hostile to the regalÃas of the crown and to the rights of the sovereigns; of the publication by order of the Council, and at the cost of the Spanish government, of the ‘Imperial judgment,’ in which the rights of the Holy See were limited exclusively to the faith, to matters of dogma, and to purely spiritual matters; of the reprisals with which the pope was threatened if he did not revoke the monitory decree; ofthe occupation of Benevento and Pontecorbo (which was an actual outbreak of hostilities), and the attempt to do the same with Castro and Ronciglione; of a mutual understanding between all the courts hostile to the Holy See; and of the establishment of a general agreement that the extinction of the Society of Jesus would be an indispensable condition for the continuance of correspondence with the court of Roma. The monitory decree of January 30 will signify, in the view of history, the termination of the secular dispute which Roma kept up during two centuries; the triumph of a new policy; and the menace against the temporal power of the popes, which constituted the essential part of the controversy. With the monitory decree, Roma was conquered, and the revolution made rapid advance.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 228–230.)↑9Danvila’s researches in the archives of Simancas brought to light the opinions of the Spanish prelates on the expulsion of the Jesuits from that country; out of sixty, forty-six approved the suppression of the Jesuit order, eight were opposed to it, and six excused themselves from expressing their opinions. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 428, 429.)↑10Among the charges made in this paper is the following: “From Filipinas comes evidence of not only their predictions against the government, but the illicit communication of their provincial with the English commander during the occupation of Manila.â€â†‘11A note by Crétineau-Joly (p. 237) declares that Alva, when on his death-bed, confessed to Felipe Bertram, bishop of Salamanca, the general of the Inquisition, that he “was one of the authors of the uprising of 1766, having incited it in hatred to the Jesuits, and in order to cause it to be imputed to them. He also avowed that he had composed a great part of the supposedletter by the general of the Jesuits against the king of Spain.†A Protestant writer is cited as saying that Alva made this same declaration to Carlos III, in writing.↑12Spanish,capas y sombreros; an edict had been issued forbidding these to be worn by the inhabitants of Madrid.↑13Alluding to accusations against the personal character of Isabel Farnese, Carlos’s mother and wife of Felipe V.↑14“Don Joseph Raon was one of the most shrewd of the governors of Manila in enriching himself without causing any one to complain; but he did nothing whatever for the service of the king. In 1768, Manila was at the same point where the English left it in 1763, without cannon or gunpowder, the troops ill-fed and ill-paid.†(Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 167.) It will be remembered that the French scientist was in Manila at the same time when Raón was.↑15InPolÃtica de España en Filipinas, 1894, pp. 175, 176, Retana describes a collection of documents which he had recently acquired, relating to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the islands. Among these were the officialexpedientes, and a series which contained the inventories of all the property which the Jesuits possessed. The list of the papers and letters found in the college of San Ignacio formed a folio volume of more than 600 pages. (There was also a list of all the books which the Jesuits kept for sale. Among these were more than 200 copies of Noceda’sDiccionario, the first edition, of which copies are now considered exceedingly rare. “In this inventory appear books of which I believe not a single copy is now in existence.â€) The collection thus acquired by Retana contained original letters from Anda and Santa Justa to Conde de Aranda, and others by the Jesuit Clain, Camacho, Raón, Anda, Basco, and other noted persons. At the time, according to Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 222) this collection, which contained more than 20,000 folios, was deposited in the Colegio de Agustinos at Valladolid.↑16It is interesting to compare with this episode that of the banishment of the French Jesuits in Louisiana (1763), as related by Father François P. Watrin; seeJesuit Relations and Allied Documents, lxx (Cleveland, 1900), pp. 211–301. Some of those exiles took refuge in the Spanish-American colonies; others proceeded to France, but found that their order was being driven out of that country.↑17Le Gentil states (Voyage, ii, p. 167) that Cosio was banished to Africa.↑18Doubtless referring to appraisals and inventories made afterward by Anda, who caused this to be done with great exactness.↑19Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, ii, p. 250) of the great college of San Ignacio: “It is said that the building of this church of the Society, its great convent, and the college of San Jose (which it has close by) cost 150,000 pesos;†also that it occupied 34,000 square varas of space (or more than six acres).↑20At a fiesta held in the Jesuit church at Manila, in 1623 the statues of canonized Jesuits were placed at the altar. “Their garments were richly embroidered with gold and silver thread in intricate designs, and were all covered with jewels—diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, seed-pearls, and other precious stones—arranged in such a manner that their luster and varied colors gave them a most pleasing and beautiful appearance. On the image of St. Xavier were faithfully counted more than 15,000 precious stones and pearls, among them more than a thousand diamonds. On that of St. Ignatius there were more than 20,000 jewels, and of these over 800 were diamonds.†(Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 41b, 42.)↑21A royal decree printed at Lima in 1777 orders the presidents and auditors of the audiencias in those regions and Filipinas, and archbishops and bishops in all the Spanish dominions beyond the seas, to exercise great care and vigilance that no person shall talk, write, or argue about the extinction of the Society of Jesus, or the causes which led to it.↑22There is a play on words here,saludmeaning both “greeting†and “salvation.â€â†‘23Contemporaneous documents preserved with this decree by Santa Justa show that the imprints to which he refers were as follows (their titles being here translated):1. “Instruction to the princes regarding the policy of the Jesuit fathers, illustrated with extensive notes, and translated from the Italian into Portuguese, and now into Castilian, with a supplement on the orthodox belief of the Jesuits. With permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the printing-office of Pantaleon Azuar, Arenal street, the house of his Excellency theDuke de Arcos. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in the bookstore of Joseph Botanero on the said street of Arenal, corner of Zarsa street.â€2. “Reflections on the memorial presented to his Holiness Clement XIII by the general of the Jesuits, in which are related various deeds of the superiors and missionaries of that order in all parts of the world, intended to frustrate the measures of the popes against their proceedings and doctrines, but which demonstrate the absolute incorrigibleness of that body. Translated from the Italian. Madrid; by Joachim de Ibarra. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in Francisco Fernandez street, in front of the steps of San Phelipe el Real.â€3. “Continuation of the portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and illustrious Catholics, etc. Third edition, with permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the shop of the widow of Ericeo Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€4. “Portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and most illustrious Catholics: authorized judgment formed of the Jesuits, with authentic and undeniable testimonies by the greatest and most distinguished men of both Church and State, from the year 1540, in which their order was founded, until 1650. Translated from the Portuguese into Castilian, in order to banish the obstinate prejudices and voluntary blindness of many unwary and deluded persons who close their eyes against the beauteous splendor of the truth. Third edition. With permission of the authorities, at Madrid. At the shop of the widow of Elicio Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€â†‘24It seems that Auditor Basaraz prohibited the circulation of these books, in which he was supported by Raón; consequently the books that had been seized were held back, notwithstanding Santa Justa’s protest, and the matter was not settled in court, as it should have been. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 196, 224.)↑25Referring to the Order of St. Francis, since many of its members were martyred in the Japanese persecutions. (About the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits, their enemies declared that, while martyrs abounded in the other religious orders, the Jesuits escaped that fate among the heathen.) In the other missions, the allusion is to the noted controversy over the Chinese rites, in which the Jesuits were accused of undue laxity and connivance with heathen customs; the same accusation was also made against them in some of the American missions.↑
1“All the disputes between España and Roma regarding the nature, extent, and limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions—commonly known by the name of theregaliasof the crown—are reflected in the continual conflicts with the nuncio, the inquisitor, and the confessor; and from them arose thepase regioand the disamortization [of corporation lands], in order to make themselves manifest in theexpedientefor the beatification of the venerable Palafox, and to endeavor to find a definitive solution in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Carlos I and Felipe II of Castilla alike considered themselves set apart by God to defend eternally the true faith, with the mission of guarding and protecting the Church; and, like the ancient Roman emperors, in temporal affairs they acknowledged no superiority or limitations on the earth. The king was regarded as a living law, a permanent tribunal, the supreme master and legitimate lord of all his vassals; in one word, the crown was looked upon as the defender of the Church. The conflict of the Middle Ages ended, España aspired to a double social ideal, unity of power and religious unity; and this thought produced concentration, and the desire to separate what was spiritual and concerned with dogma from what was temporal and belonging to the government of peoples. Two distinctideas strove together in the field of doctrine; one, supported by the submissions in former days of the Eastern Empire, claimed to subject temporal monarchs to the supreme political direction of the head of the Catholic Church; and the other, derived from primitive traditions, claimed that the Catholic sovereigns ought to exercise, equally with the pontiffs, the external government of the Church, as its natural protectors. A persistent and obstinate strife arose between the two ideas, and after several centuries the controversy was settled, by limiting the rights of the Holy See to that which concerned dogmas and the spiritual power, and leaving to the royal authority all that referred to discipline and the exercise of government, in whatever relates to the security of the State and the welfare of the people. It is this which with some unfitness has been calledregalÃas; and at bottom it has been nothing more than the recovery of the proper character of the civil power, and the demarcation of the attributes of the power of the Church and the State. This demarcation, the strife over which lasted for entire centuries, was recognized in España by the concordat of 1753, in which is declared the right of [ecclesiastical] patronage of the kings of España; and to it theexequatur, disamortization, and the reform of both the regular and secular clergy, served them as a complement.†(Danvila,Reinado de Carlos III, ii, pp. 270, 271.)Thepase regio(Latin,exequatur) above mentioned refers to the prerogative assumed by the Spanish kings of the right to “pass†or confirm papal edicts or briefs, or those issued by other foreign ecclesiastics, or by the superiors of religious orders, before these could be valid in the Spanish dominions; several instances of this have already been mentioned in documents of this series. “Disamortization†(a word which, as the standard English lexicons contain no single word which expresses exactly the idea conveyed in the Spanishdesamortización, we are obliged to coin for this purpose, simply transferring it, in English form, from the Spanish) means the act of setting free any lands which had been conveyed, in mortmain, to the corporations (mainly religious), that is, enabling other persons to acquire such lands. Theexequaturis called by Danvila (ii, p. 281) “the most transcendent of the regalÃas of the crown.â€â†‘2It may be noted that all these high ecclesiastics signed the reports of the Council justifying the expulsion of the Jesuits, and that the archbishop of Manila (Santa Justa) is cited in various documents as having counseled the king to banish that order from his dominions.↑3“It is known that the Society of Jesus was, more than a religious association, in reality a great mercantile company, from a very short time after its institution until its extinction by Clement XIV. Its vast commercial transactions in Europe, America, and Oceania furnished to it immense wealth; and, infatuated with their power and the dominion which they exercised over the minds of their ardent followers; having gained possession as they had done of the confessional and directing the consciences of kings and magnates; and strengthened by the affection (which they exploited with great ability) of women—upon whom they always have exercised, as they still do, a magnetic influence—the Jesuits considered themselves absolute masters of the world; and they devoted themselves to intervention in political affairs, managing with cautious skill political dealings in almost all countries, according to the degree in which these concerned their particular purposes. Their insolent and illegal acts, their despotism, their ambition, the iron yoke with which they oppressed both kings and peoples; their disputes with the other religious associations, who could not look with pleasure on the predominance and wealth of the new society which so audaciously gathered in the harvest from the fertile vineyard of the Lord; their dangerous maxims in regard to regicide, their demoralizing system of doctrine, their satanic pride and insatiable greed, their hypocrisy and corruption: all these raised against them a unanimous protest. Mistrust of them awoke in kings and peoples; men of sincere purpose and true Christian morals were alarmed; and on every side arose enemies of their order, and irrefutable proofs of their abominable aberrations were brought forward.†(Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142–146.)↑4See detailed account of the so-called “family compact†and the secret agreement which accompanied it, in Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 101–167. At the end he says: “The celebrated ‘family compact’ was never anaffaire de cÅ“ur, but an alliance offensive and defensive in order to check the progress of the British armsin Europa and America, and to dispute with England the maritime supremacy of which she had possessed herself …. The ‘family compact,’ and the secret agreement which completed it, were from the beginning an alliance offensive and defensive of España and France against Great Britain.â€â†‘5Montero y Vidal makes numerous citations (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142, 143, 147–159) from letters written to Pope Innocent X in 1647 and 1649 by the noted bishop of La Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, showing how great wealth and power the Jesuits had attained in Nueva España, their hatred toward him and their conspiracies and even open attacks against him for doing his official duty, and their lawless, scandalous, immoral, and irreligious acts, as he has seen them.↑6In November, 1779, letters were received by the Spanish government from their ambassador at Rome, asking that, in view of the poverty and suffering endured by the ex-Jesuits there, their pensions might be increased. Inquiries were made as to their numbers, with the following results; “On April 1, 1767, there existed in España 1,660 priests, 102 scholastics, and 965 coadjutors,making a total of 2,727. From the seven provinces of the Indias there arrived at the port of Santa MarÃa 1,396 priests, 327 scholastics, and 544 coadjutors, making a total of 2,267. The pensions of both classes amounted to 7,264,650 reals. On April 1, 1779, there existed in Italia 1,274 priests and scholastics, and 664 coadjutors belonging to the four provinces of España [i.e., those of the Jesuit order in that country, being designated as Toledo, Castilla, AndalucÃa, and Aragón], and, confined in them, sixteen priests and five coadjutors, the life-pensions of all these amounting to 2,852,600 reals; and from the seven provinces of Indias there were 1,197 priests and 279 coadjutors, the yearly sum of whose pensions was 2,255,750 reals, including those assigned to the Jesuits confined in España. Thus the difference between 1767 and 1779 was that of 2,151,300 reals, on account of the flight to foreign lands or the [ecclesiastical] suspension of 242 priests, 4 scholastics, and 145 coadjutors, and the death of 1,038 priests and 516 coadjutors. The twelve colleges and the procuradorÃa of the provinces of Méjico and of Filipinas, and of the college of Navarra, yielded 3,665,133 reals, 15 maravedÃs, leaving a surplus of 1,111,408 reals. The expenses for pensions, maintenance in España, clothing, and others which had arisen with the ex-Jesuits from the Indias, up to the end of June, 1779, reached the sum of 45,321,439 reals, 20 maravedÃs; and adding to this 3,086,767 reals, 14 maravedÃs, the value of a certain contribution given by order of his Majesty to the royal hospital of this court, and the payment of debts contracted by some colleges in the Indias, the total is 48,408,207 reals. The temporalities of the Indias were therefore indebted to those of España in 7,077,836 reals, 16 2–3 maravedÃs.†In view of these statistics, the Council did not feel able to increase the amount of the pensions, but agreed to send to the Spanish ambassador at Rome the sum of 1,500,000 reals, to be distributed among the ex-Jesuits in such manner as would best relieve their poverty. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 614, 615.)(The above passage is carefully copied from Danvila, but there are some discrepancies in the figures given; these cannot be verified, of course, without reference to the original document in the Simancas archives cited by the author. These discrepancies are in all probability due to careless proof-reading, some instances of which we have seen in Danvila’s admirable work.)“Some of the expelled [Jesuits] did not content themselves with removing [from Corsica] to the States of the Church andthe Italian cities, but ventured to make their appearance in Barcelona and Gerona; and when the Council committee had notice of this fact they assembled, and decided that the observance of the pragmatic sanction [for the expulsion] ought to be decreed, imposing the penalty of death on the secular lay-brothers, and perpetual confinement on those ordainedin sacris.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 114, 115, 117.) The “suspension†referred to above evidently applies to certain persons who returned to secular life and occupations, some coadjutors even marrying wives.↑7It has been seen (note 135,ante) that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of the visitor Palafox; and the proposal to canonize him, which was made by Carlos III to the pope in 1760, aroused the strong opposition of that order. His letters to the pope in 1647 and 1649 had led to papal decrees enforcing the episcopal authority against the encroachments of the Jesuits, which, after attempting to oppose them, the latter were finally compelled to obey. It was not until 1694 that the ecclesiastical authorities began to examine the writings of Palafox; and it appears that his letter of 1649 was prohibited in theIndex expurgatoriusin 1707 and 1747, and that by an edict of the Inquisition of May 13, 1759 certain letters attributed to him were seized and publicly burned by the hangman—not because there was in them anything deserving theological censure, but on merely technical charges of having been published without the necessary “red tape†prescribed in such cases, and “in order to renew controversies already finished, with the sole object of calumniating and discrediting among the faithful the order of the Society of Jesus, against the intention and good fame of that prelate to whom they were attributed.†The Spanish rulers Felipe V and Fernando VI, and later Carlos III, had all at various times made efforts to have Palafox’s writings examined by the Roman Congregation of Rites; for they regarded him as one of the defenders of the royal right of patronage in America. This was finally accomplished, the Congregation declaring unanimously that they found therein nothing contrary to the faith or to good morals, or to sound doctrine; and that the process for his beatification might now be undertaken. The Pope approved this finding, on December 9, 1760, and on February 5 following the supreme Inquisition of Spain published a decree annulling the above-mentioned prohibitions of his writings. It was thereupon made known to the Spanish ministers that in the Council of the Indias no document remained which favored the cause of Palafox; the records had been cut out and carried away. This mutilation was ascribed to the Jesuits. The beatification of Palafox wasapproved by the Congregation of Rites, and the pope confirmed this on September 6, 1766; but its execution forthwith encountered delays, showing that his enemies in Rome were the same whom he had pointed out in his letter of 1649. (Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 255–270.)↑8This decree, “if we view the occasion of its publication, and the terms in which it is expressed, accepted in the name of the court of Roma the war to which all the Catholic nations were provoking it; and accepted that war without sufficient power to defend itself. The attitude of France, España, Portugal, Naples, and Parma, and later of Vienna, was the result of a new policy which strove to limit the power of the pontificate and to take away its temporal power; and the latter ought not to have begun hostilities without weighing well the consequences, and, above all, without estimating the forces on which it might depend for the combat. The monitory decree of Parma, as the brief of January 30 is called, in which his Holiness protested against all the measures which the Catholic courts were putting into execution, was the origin and cause of the expulsion of the Jesuits by the duchies of Parma and Plasencia; of the prohibition of the circulation in the Catholic states of the bullIn cÅ“na Dominiand of obedience to it; of the reëstablishment in those states of thepase regio, which had been suspended in España since 1763; of barring from circulation the monitory decree, because it was considered hostile to the regalÃas of the crown and to the rights of the sovereigns; of the publication by order of the Council, and at the cost of the Spanish government, of the ‘Imperial judgment,’ in which the rights of the Holy See were limited exclusively to the faith, to matters of dogma, and to purely spiritual matters; of the reprisals with which the pope was threatened if he did not revoke the monitory decree; ofthe occupation of Benevento and Pontecorbo (which was an actual outbreak of hostilities), and the attempt to do the same with Castro and Ronciglione; of a mutual understanding between all the courts hostile to the Holy See; and of the establishment of a general agreement that the extinction of the Society of Jesus would be an indispensable condition for the continuance of correspondence with the court of Roma. The monitory decree of January 30 will signify, in the view of history, the termination of the secular dispute which Roma kept up during two centuries; the triumph of a new policy; and the menace against the temporal power of the popes, which constituted the essential part of the controversy. With the monitory decree, Roma was conquered, and the revolution made rapid advance.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 228–230.)↑9Danvila’s researches in the archives of Simancas brought to light the opinions of the Spanish prelates on the expulsion of the Jesuits from that country; out of sixty, forty-six approved the suppression of the Jesuit order, eight were opposed to it, and six excused themselves from expressing their opinions. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 428, 429.)↑10Among the charges made in this paper is the following: “From Filipinas comes evidence of not only their predictions against the government, but the illicit communication of their provincial with the English commander during the occupation of Manila.â€â†‘11A note by Crétineau-Joly (p. 237) declares that Alva, when on his death-bed, confessed to Felipe Bertram, bishop of Salamanca, the general of the Inquisition, that he “was one of the authors of the uprising of 1766, having incited it in hatred to the Jesuits, and in order to cause it to be imputed to them. He also avowed that he had composed a great part of the supposedletter by the general of the Jesuits against the king of Spain.†A Protestant writer is cited as saying that Alva made this same declaration to Carlos III, in writing.↑12Spanish,capas y sombreros; an edict had been issued forbidding these to be worn by the inhabitants of Madrid.↑13Alluding to accusations against the personal character of Isabel Farnese, Carlos’s mother and wife of Felipe V.↑14“Don Joseph Raon was one of the most shrewd of the governors of Manila in enriching himself without causing any one to complain; but he did nothing whatever for the service of the king. In 1768, Manila was at the same point where the English left it in 1763, without cannon or gunpowder, the troops ill-fed and ill-paid.†(Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 167.) It will be remembered that the French scientist was in Manila at the same time when Raón was.↑15InPolÃtica de España en Filipinas, 1894, pp. 175, 176, Retana describes a collection of documents which he had recently acquired, relating to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the islands. Among these were the officialexpedientes, and a series which contained the inventories of all the property which the Jesuits possessed. The list of the papers and letters found in the college of San Ignacio formed a folio volume of more than 600 pages. (There was also a list of all the books which the Jesuits kept for sale. Among these were more than 200 copies of Noceda’sDiccionario, the first edition, of which copies are now considered exceedingly rare. “In this inventory appear books of which I believe not a single copy is now in existence.â€) The collection thus acquired by Retana contained original letters from Anda and Santa Justa to Conde de Aranda, and others by the Jesuit Clain, Camacho, Raón, Anda, Basco, and other noted persons. At the time, according to Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 222) this collection, which contained more than 20,000 folios, was deposited in the Colegio de Agustinos at Valladolid.↑16It is interesting to compare with this episode that of the banishment of the French Jesuits in Louisiana (1763), as related by Father François P. Watrin; seeJesuit Relations and Allied Documents, lxx (Cleveland, 1900), pp. 211–301. Some of those exiles took refuge in the Spanish-American colonies; others proceeded to France, but found that their order was being driven out of that country.↑17Le Gentil states (Voyage, ii, p. 167) that Cosio was banished to Africa.↑18Doubtless referring to appraisals and inventories made afterward by Anda, who caused this to be done with great exactness.↑19Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, ii, p. 250) of the great college of San Ignacio: “It is said that the building of this church of the Society, its great convent, and the college of San Jose (which it has close by) cost 150,000 pesos;†also that it occupied 34,000 square varas of space (or more than six acres).↑20At a fiesta held in the Jesuit church at Manila, in 1623 the statues of canonized Jesuits were placed at the altar. “Their garments were richly embroidered with gold and silver thread in intricate designs, and were all covered with jewels—diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, seed-pearls, and other precious stones—arranged in such a manner that their luster and varied colors gave them a most pleasing and beautiful appearance. On the image of St. Xavier were faithfully counted more than 15,000 precious stones and pearls, among them more than a thousand diamonds. On that of St. Ignatius there were more than 20,000 jewels, and of these over 800 were diamonds.†(Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 41b, 42.)↑21A royal decree printed at Lima in 1777 orders the presidents and auditors of the audiencias in those regions and Filipinas, and archbishops and bishops in all the Spanish dominions beyond the seas, to exercise great care and vigilance that no person shall talk, write, or argue about the extinction of the Society of Jesus, or the causes which led to it.↑22There is a play on words here,saludmeaning both “greeting†and “salvation.â€â†‘23Contemporaneous documents preserved with this decree by Santa Justa show that the imprints to which he refers were as follows (their titles being here translated):1. “Instruction to the princes regarding the policy of the Jesuit fathers, illustrated with extensive notes, and translated from the Italian into Portuguese, and now into Castilian, with a supplement on the orthodox belief of the Jesuits. With permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the printing-office of Pantaleon Azuar, Arenal street, the house of his Excellency theDuke de Arcos. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in the bookstore of Joseph Botanero on the said street of Arenal, corner of Zarsa street.â€2. “Reflections on the memorial presented to his Holiness Clement XIII by the general of the Jesuits, in which are related various deeds of the superiors and missionaries of that order in all parts of the world, intended to frustrate the measures of the popes against their proceedings and doctrines, but which demonstrate the absolute incorrigibleness of that body. Translated from the Italian. Madrid; by Joachim de Ibarra. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in Francisco Fernandez street, in front of the steps of San Phelipe el Real.â€3. “Continuation of the portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and illustrious Catholics, etc. Third edition, with permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the shop of the widow of Ericeo Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€4. “Portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and most illustrious Catholics: authorized judgment formed of the Jesuits, with authentic and undeniable testimonies by the greatest and most distinguished men of both Church and State, from the year 1540, in which their order was founded, until 1650. Translated from the Portuguese into Castilian, in order to banish the obstinate prejudices and voluntary blindness of many unwary and deluded persons who close their eyes against the beauteous splendor of the truth. Third edition. With permission of the authorities, at Madrid. At the shop of the widow of Elicio Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€â†‘24It seems that Auditor Basaraz prohibited the circulation of these books, in which he was supported by Raón; consequently the books that had been seized were held back, notwithstanding Santa Justa’s protest, and the matter was not settled in court, as it should have been. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 196, 224.)↑25Referring to the Order of St. Francis, since many of its members were martyred in the Japanese persecutions. (About the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits, their enemies declared that, while martyrs abounded in the other religious orders, the Jesuits escaped that fate among the heathen.) In the other missions, the allusion is to the noted controversy over the Chinese rites, in which the Jesuits were accused of undue laxity and connivance with heathen customs; the same accusation was also made against them in some of the American missions.↑
1“All the disputes between España and Roma regarding the nature, extent, and limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions—commonly known by the name of theregaliasof the crown—are reflected in the continual conflicts with the nuncio, the inquisitor, and the confessor; and from them arose thepase regioand the disamortization [of corporation lands], in order to make themselves manifest in theexpedientefor the beatification of the venerable Palafox, and to endeavor to find a definitive solution in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Carlos I and Felipe II of Castilla alike considered themselves set apart by God to defend eternally the true faith, with the mission of guarding and protecting the Church; and, like the ancient Roman emperors, in temporal affairs they acknowledged no superiority or limitations on the earth. The king was regarded as a living law, a permanent tribunal, the supreme master and legitimate lord of all his vassals; in one word, the crown was looked upon as the defender of the Church. The conflict of the Middle Ages ended, España aspired to a double social ideal, unity of power and religious unity; and this thought produced concentration, and the desire to separate what was spiritual and concerned with dogma from what was temporal and belonging to the government of peoples. Two distinctideas strove together in the field of doctrine; one, supported by the submissions in former days of the Eastern Empire, claimed to subject temporal monarchs to the supreme political direction of the head of the Catholic Church; and the other, derived from primitive traditions, claimed that the Catholic sovereigns ought to exercise, equally with the pontiffs, the external government of the Church, as its natural protectors. A persistent and obstinate strife arose between the two ideas, and after several centuries the controversy was settled, by limiting the rights of the Holy See to that which concerned dogmas and the spiritual power, and leaving to the royal authority all that referred to discipline and the exercise of government, in whatever relates to the security of the State and the welfare of the people. It is this which with some unfitness has been calledregalÃas; and at bottom it has been nothing more than the recovery of the proper character of the civil power, and the demarcation of the attributes of the power of the Church and the State. This demarcation, the strife over which lasted for entire centuries, was recognized in España by the concordat of 1753, in which is declared the right of [ecclesiastical] patronage of the kings of España; and to it theexequatur, disamortization, and the reform of both the regular and secular clergy, served them as a complement.†(Danvila,Reinado de Carlos III, ii, pp. 270, 271.)Thepase regio(Latin,exequatur) above mentioned refers to the prerogative assumed by the Spanish kings of the right to “pass†or confirm papal edicts or briefs, or those issued by other foreign ecclesiastics, or by the superiors of religious orders, before these could be valid in the Spanish dominions; several instances of this have already been mentioned in documents of this series. “Disamortization†(a word which, as the standard English lexicons contain no single word which expresses exactly the idea conveyed in the Spanishdesamortización, we are obliged to coin for this purpose, simply transferring it, in English form, from the Spanish) means the act of setting free any lands which had been conveyed, in mortmain, to the corporations (mainly religious), that is, enabling other persons to acquire such lands. Theexequaturis called by Danvila (ii, p. 281) “the most transcendent of the regalÃas of the crown.â€â†‘2It may be noted that all these high ecclesiastics signed the reports of the Council justifying the expulsion of the Jesuits, and that the archbishop of Manila (Santa Justa) is cited in various documents as having counseled the king to banish that order from his dominions.↑3“It is known that the Society of Jesus was, more than a religious association, in reality a great mercantile company, from a very short time after its institution until its extinction by Clement XIV. Its vast commercial transactions in Europe, America, and Oceania furnished to it immense wealth; and, infatuated with their power and the dominion which they exercised over the minds of their ardent followers; having gained possession as they had done of the confessional and directing the consciences of kings and magnates; and strengthened by the affection (which they exploited with great ability) of women—upon whom they always have exercised, as they still do, a magnetic influence—the Jesuits considered themselves absolute masters of the world; and they devoted themselves to intervention in political affairs, managing with cautious skill political dealings in almost all countries, according to the degree in which these concerned their particular purposes. Their insolent and illegal acts, their despotism, their ambition, the iron yoke with which they oppressed both kings and peoples; their disputes with the other religious associations, who could not look with pleasure on the predominance and wealth of the new society which so audaciously gathered in the harvest from the fertile vineyard of the Lord; their dangerous maxims in regard to regicide, their demoralizing system of doctrine, their satanic pride and insatiable greed, their hypocrisy and corruption: all these raised against them a unanimous protest. Mistrust of them awoke in kings and peoples; men of sincere purpose and true Christian morals were alarmed; and on every side arose enemies of their order, and irrefutable proofs of their abominable aberrations were brought forward.†(Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142–146.)↑4See detailed account of the so-called “family compact†and the secret agreement which accompanied it, in Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 101–167. At the end he says: “The celebrated ‘family compact’ was never anaffaire de cÅ“ur, but an alliance offensive and defensive in order to check the progress of the British armsin Europa and America, and to dispute with England the maritime supremacy of which she had possessed herself …. The ‘family compact,’ and the secret agreement which completed it, were from the beginning an alliance offensive and defensive of España and France against Great Britain.â€â†‘5Montero y Vidal makes numerous citations (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142, 143, 147–159) from letters written to Pope Innocent X in 1647 and 1649 by the noted bishop of La Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, showing how great wealth and power the Jesuits had attained in Nueva España, their hatred toward him and their conspiracies and even open attacks against him for doing his official duty, and their lawless, scandalous, immoral, and irreligious acts, as he has seen them.↑6In November, 1779, letters were received by the Spanish government from their ambassador at Rome, asking that, in view of the poverty and suffering endured by the ex-Jesuits there, their pensions might be increased. Inquiries were made as to their numbers, with the following results; “On April 1, 1767, there existed in España 1,660 priests, 102 scholastics, and 965 coadjutors,making a total of 2,727. From the seven provinces of the Indias there arrived at the port of Santa MarÃa 1,396 priests, 327 scholastics, and 544 coadjutors, making a total of 2,267. The pensions of both classes amounted to 7,264,650 reals. On April 1, 1779, there existed in Italia 1,274 priests and scholastics, and 664 coadjutors belonging to the four provinces of España [i.e., those of the Jesuit order in that country, being designated as Toledo, Castilla, AndalucÃa, and Aragón], and, confined in them, sixteen priests and five coadjutors, the life-pensions of all these amounting to 2,852,600 reals; and from the seven provinces of Indias there were 1,197 priests and 279 coadjutors, the yearly sum of whose pensions was 2,255,750 reals, including those assigned to the Jesuits confined in España. Thus the difference between 1767 and 1779 was that of 2,151,300 reals, on account of the flight to foreign lands or the [ecclesiastical] suspension of 242 priests, 4 scholastics, and 145 coadjutors, and the death of 1,038 priests and 516 coadjutors. The twelve colleges and the procuradorÃa of the provinces of Méjico and of Filipinas, and of the college of Navarra, yielded 3,665,133 reals, 15 maravedÃs, leaving a surplus of 1,111,408 reals. The expenses for pensions, maintenance in España, clothing, and others which had arisen with the ex-Jesuits from the Indias, up to the end of June, 1779, reached the sum of 45,321,439 reals, 20 maravedÃs; and adding to this 3,086,767 reals, 14 maravedÃs, the value of a certain contribution given by order of his Majesty to the royal hospital of this court, and the payment of debts contracted by some colleges in the Indias, the total is 48,408,207 reals. The temporalities of the Indias were therefore indebted to those of España in 7,077,836 reals, 16 2–3 maravedÃs.†In view of these statistics, the Council did not feel able to increase the amount of the pensions, but agreed to send to the Spanish ambassador at Rome the sum of 1,500,000 reals, to be distributed among the ex-Jesuits in such manner as would best relieve their poverty. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 614, 615.)(The above passage is carefully copied from Danvila, but there are some discrepancies in the figures given; these cannot be verified, of course, without reference to the original document in the Simancas archives cited by the author. These discrepancies are in all probability due to careless proof-reading, some instances of which we have seen in Danvila’s admirable work.)“Some of the expelled [Jesuits] did not content themselves with removing [from Corsica] to the States of the Church andthe Italian cities, but ventured to make their appearance in Barcelona and Gerona; and when the Council committee had notice of this fact they assembled, and decided that the observance of the pragmatic sanction [for the expulsion] ought to be decreed, imposing the penalty of death on the secular lay-brothers, and perpetual confinement on those ordainedin sacris.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 114, 115, 117.) The “suspension†referred to above evidently applies to certain persons who returned to secular life and occupations, some coadjutors even marrying wives.↑7It has been seen (note 135,ante) that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of the visitor Palafox; and the proposal to canonize him, which was made by Carlos III to the pope in 1760, aroused the strong opposition of that order. His letters to the pope in 1647 and 1649 had led to papal decrees enforcing the episcopal authority against the encroachments of the Jesuits, which, after attempting to oppose them, the latter were finally compelled to obey. It was not until 1694 that the ecclesiastical authorities began to examine the writings of Palafox; and it appears that his letter of 1649 was prohibited in theIndex expurgatoriusin 1707 and 1747, and that by an edict of the Inquisition of May 13, 1759 certain letters attributed to him were seized and publicly burned by the hangman—not because there was in them anything deserving theological censure, but on merely technical charges of having been published without the necessary “red tape†prescribed in such cases, and “in order to renew controversies already finished, with the sole object of calumniating and discrediting among the faithful the order of the Society of Jesus, against the intention and good fame of that prelate to whom they were attributed.†The Spanish rulers Felipe V and Fernando VI, and later Carlos III, had all at various times made efforts to have Palafox’s writings examined by the Roman Congregation of Rites; for they regarded him as one of the defenders of the royal right of patronage in America. This was finally accomplished, the Congregation declaring unanimously that they found therein nothing contrary to the faith or to good morals, or to sound doctrine; and that the process for his beatification might now be undertaken. The Pope approved this finding, on December 9, 1760, and on February 5 following the supreme Inquisition of Spain published a decree annulling the above-mentioned prohibitions of his writings. It was thereupon made known to the Spanish ministers that in the Council of the Indias no document remained which favored the cause of Palafox; the records had been cut out and carried away. This mutilation was ascribed to the Jesuits. The beatification of Palafox wasapproved by the Congregation of Rites, and the pope confirmed this on September 6, 1766; but its execution forthwith encountered delays, showing that his enemies in Rome were the same whom he had pointed out in his letter of 1649. (Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 255–270.)↑8This decree, “if we view the occasion of its publication, and the terms in which it is expressed, accepted in the name of the court of Roma the war to which all the Catholic nations were provoking it; and accepted that war without sufficient power to defend itself. The attitude of France, España, Portugal, Naples, and Parma, and later of Vienna, was the result of a new policy which strove to limit the power of the pontificate and to take away its temporal power; and the latter ought not to have begun hostilities without weighing well the consequences, and, above all, without estimating the forces on which it might depend for the combat. The monitory decree of Parma, as the brief of January 30 is called, in which his Holiness protested against all the measures which the Catholic courts were putting into execution, was the origin and cause of the expulsion of the Jesuits by the duchies of Parma and Plasencia; of the prohibition of the circulation in the Catholic states of the bullIn cÅ“na Dominiand of obedience to it; of the reëstablishment in those states of thepase regio, which had been suspended in España since 1763; of barring from circulation the monitory decree, because it was considered hostile to the regalÃas of the crown and to the rights of the sovereigns; of the publication by order of the Council, and at the cost of the Spanish government, of the ‘Imperial judgment,’ in which the rights of the Holy See were limited exclusively to the faith, to matters of dogma, and to purely spiritual matters; of the reprisals with which the pope was threatened if he did not revoke the monitory decree; ofthe occupation of Benevento and Pontecorbo (which was an actual outbreak of hostilities), and the attempt to do the same with Castro and Ronciglione; of a mutual understanding between all the courts hostile to the Holy See; and of the establishment of a general agreement that the extinction of the Society of Jesus would be an indispensable condition for the continuance of correspondence with the court of Roma. The monitory decree of January 30 will signify, in the view of history, the termination of the secular dispute which Roma kept up during two centuries; the triumph of a new policy; and the menace against the temporal power of the popes, which constituted the essential part of the controversy. With the monitory decree, Roma was conquered, and the revolution made rapid advance.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 228–230.)↑9Danvila’s researches in the archives of Simancas brought to light the opinions of the Spanish prelates on the expulsion of the Jesuits from that country; out of sixty, forty-six approved the suppression of the Jesuit order, eight were opposed to it, and six excused themselves from expressing their opinions. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 428, 429.)↑10Among the charges made in this paper is the following: “From Filipinas comes evidence of not only their predictions against the government, but the illicit communication of their provincial with the English commander during the occupation of Manila.â€â†‘11A note by Crétineau-Joly (p. 237) declares that Alva, when on his death-bed, confessed to Felipe Bertram, bishop of Salamanca, the general of the Inquisition, that he “was one of the authors of the uprising of 1766, having incited it in hatred to the Jesuits, and in order to cause it to be imputed to them. He also avowed that he had composed a great part of the supposedletter by the general of the Jesuits against the king of Spain.†A Protestant writer is cited as saying that Alva made this same declaration to Carlos III, in writing.↑12Spanish,capas y sombreros; an edict had been issued forbidding these to be worn by the inhabitants of Madrid.↑13Alluding to accusations against the personal character of Isabel Farnese, Carlos’s mother and wife of Felipe V.↑14“Don Joseph Raon was one of the most shrewd of the governors of Manila in enriching himself without causing any one to complain; but he did nothing whatever for the service of the king. In 1768, Manila was at the same point where the English left it in 1763, without cannon or gunpowder, the troops ill-fed and ill-paid.†(Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 167.) It will be remembered that the French scientist was in Manila at the same time when Raón was.↑15InPolÃtica de España en Filipinas, 1894, pp. 175, 176, Retana describes a collection of documents which he had recently acquired, relating to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the islands. Among these were the officialexpedientes, and a series which contained the inventories of all the property which the Jesuits possessed. The list of the papers and letters found in the college of San Ignacio formed a folio volume of more than 600 pages. (There was also a list of all the books which the Jesuits kept for sale. Among these were more than 200 copies of Noceda’sDiccionario, the first edition, of which copies are now considered exceedingly rare. “In this inventory appear books of which I believe not a single copy is now in existence.â€) The collection thus acquired by Retana contained original letters from Anda and Santa Justa to Conde de Aranda, and others by the Jesuit Clain, Camacho, Raón, Anda, Basco, and other noted persons. At the time, according to Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 222) this collection, which contained more than 20,000 folios, was deposited in the Colegio de Agustinos at Valladolid.↑16It is interesting to compare with this episode that of the banishment of the French Jesuits in Louisiana (1763), as related by Father François P. Watrin; seeJesuit Relations and Allied Documents, lxx (Cleveland, 1900), pp. 211–301. Some of those exiles took refuge in the Spanish-American colonies; others proceeded to France, but found that their order was being driven out of that country.↑17Le Gentil states (Voyage, ii, p. 167) that Cosio was banished to Africa.↑18Doubtless referring to appraisals and inventories made afterward by Anda, who caused this to be done with great exactness.↑19Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, ii, p. 250) of the great college of San Ignacio: “It is said that the building of this church of the Society, its great convent, and the college of San Jose (which it has close by) cost 150,000 pesos;†also that it occupied 34,000 square varas of space (or more than six acres).↑20At a fiesta held in the Jesuit church at Manila, in 1623 the statues of canonized Jesuits were placed at the altar. “Their garments were richly embroidered with gold and silver thread in intricate designs, and were all covered with jewels—diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, seed-pearls, and other precious stones—arranged in such a manner that their luster and varied colors gave them a most pleasing and beautiful appearance. On the image of St. Xavier were faithfully counted more than 15,000 precious stones and pearls, among them more than a thousand diamonds. On that of St. Ignatius there were more than 20,000 jewels, and of these over 800 were diamonds.†(Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 41b, 42.)↑21A royal decree printed at Lima in 1777 orders the presidents and auditors of the audiencias in those regions and Filipinas, and archbishops and bishops in all the Spanish dominions beyond the seas, to exercise great care and vigilance that no person shall talk, write, or argue about the extinction of the Society of Jesus, or the causes which led to it.↑22There is a play on words here,saludmeaning both “greeting†and “salvation.â€â†‘23Contemporaneous documents preserved with this decree by Santa Justa show that the imprints to which he refers were as follows (their titles being here translated):1. “Instruction to the princes regarding the policy of the Jesuit fathers, illustrated with extensive notes, and translated from the Italian into Portuguese, and now into Castilian, with a supplement on the orthodox belief of the Jesuits. With permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the printing-office of Pantaleon Azuar, Arenal street, the house of his Excellency theDuke de Arcos. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in the bookstore of Joseph Botanero on the said street of Arenal, corner of Zarsa street.â€2. “Reflections on the memorial presented to his Holiness Clement XIII by the general of the Jesuits, in which are related various deeds of the superiors and missionaries of that order in all parts of the world, intended to frustrate the measures of the popes against their proceedings and doctrines, but which demonstrate the absolute incorrigibleness of that body. Translated from the Italian. Madrid; by Joachim de Ibarra. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in Francisco Fernandez street, in front of the steps of San Phelipe el Real.â€3. “Continuation of the portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and illustrious Catholics, etc. Third edition, with permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the shop of the widow of Ericeo Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€4. “Portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and most illustrious Catholics: authorized judgment formed of the Jesuits, with authentic and undeniable testimonies by the greatest and most distinguished men of both Church and State, from the year 1540, in which their order was founded, until 1650. Translated from the Portuguese into Castilian, in order to banish the obstinate prejudices and voluntary blindness of many unwary and deluded persons who close their eyes against the beauteous splendor of the truth. Third edition. With permission of the authorities, at Madrid. At the shop of the widow of Elicio Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€â†‘24It seems that Auditor Basaraz prohibited the circulation of these books, in which he was supported by Raón; consequently the books that had been seized were held back, notwithstanding Santa Justa’s protest, and the matter was not settled in court, as it should have been. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 196, 224.)↑25Referring to the Order of St. Francis, since many of its members were martyred in the Japanese persecutions. (About the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits, their enemies declared that, while martyrs abounded in the other religious orders, the Jesuits escaped that fate among the heathen.) In the other missions, the allusion is to the noted controversy over the Chinese rites, in which the Jesuits were accused of undue laxity and connivance with heathen customs; the same accusation was also made against them in some of the American missions.↑
1“All the disputes between España and Roma regarding the nature, extent, and limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions—commonly known by the name of theregaliasof the crown—are reflected in the continual conflicts with the nuncio, the inquisitor, and the confessor; and from them arose thepase regioand the disamortization [of corporation lands], in order to make themselves manifest in theexpedientefor the beatification of the venerable Palafox, and to endeavor to find a definitive solution in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Carlos I and Felipe II of Castilla alike considered themselves set apart by God to defend eternally the true faith, with the mission of guarding and protecting the Church; and, like the ancient Roman emperors, in temporal affairs they acknowledged no superiority or limitations on the earth. The king was regarded as a living law, a permanent tribunal, the supreme master and legitimate lord of all his vassals; in one word, the crown was looked upon as the defender of the Church. The conflict of the Middle Ages ended, España aspired to a double social ideal, unity of power and religious unity; and this thought produced concentration, and the desire to separate what was spiritual and concerned with dogma from what was temporal and belonging to the government of peoples. Two distinctideas strove together in the field of doctrine; one, supported by the submissions in former days of the Eastern Empire, claimed to subject temporal monarchs to the supreme political direction of the head of the Catholic Church; and the other, derived from primitive traditions, claimed that the Catholic sovereigns ought to exercise, equally with the pontiffs, the external government of the Church, as its natural protectors. A persistent and obstinate strife arose between the two ideas, and after several centuries the controversy was settled, by limiting the rights of the Holy See to that which concerned dogmas and the spiritual power, and leaving to the royal authority all that referred to discipline and the exercise of government, in whatever relates to the security of the State and the welfare of the people. It is this which with some unfitness has been calledregalÃas; and at bottom it has been nothing more than the recovery of the proper character of the civil power, and the demarcation of the attributes of the power of the Church and the State. This demarcation, the strife over which lasted for entire centuries, was recognized in España by the concordat of 1753, in which is declared the right of [ecclesiastical] patronage of the kings of España; and to it theexequatur, disamortization, and the reform of both the regular and secular clergy, served them as a complement.†(Danvila,Reinado de Carlos III, ii, pp. 270, 271.)Thepase regio(Latin,exequatur) above mentioned refers to the prerogative assumed by the Spanish kings of the right to “pass†or confirm papal edicts or briefs, or those issued by other foreign ecclesiastics, or by the superiors of religious orders, before these could be valid in the Spanish dominions; several instances of this have already been mentioned in documents of this series. “Disamortization†(a word which, as the standard English lexicons contain no single word which expresses exactly the idea conveyed in the Spanishdesamortización, we are obliged to coin for this purpose, simply transferring it, in English form, from the Spanish) means the act of setting free any lands which had been conveyed, in mortmain, to the corporations (mainly religious), that is, enabling other persons to acquire such lands. Theexequaturis called by Danvila (ii, p. 281) “the most transcendent of the regalÃas of the crown.â€â†‘2It may be noted that all these high ecclesiastics signed the reports of the Council justifying the expulsion of the Jesuits, and that the archbishop of Manila (Santa Justa) is cited in various documents as having counseled the king to banish that order from his dominions.↑3“It is known that the Society of Jesus was, more than a religious association, in reality a great mercantile company, from a very short time after its institution until its extinction by Clement XIV. Its vast commercial transactions in Europe, America, and Oceania furnished to it immense wealth; and, infatuated with their power and the dominion which they exercised over the minds of their ardent followers; having gained possession as they had done of the confessional and directing the consciences of kings and magnates; and strengthened by the affection (which they exploited with great ability) of women—upon whom they always have exercised, as they still do, a magnetic influence—the Jesuits considered themselves absolute masters of the world; and they devoted themselves to intervention in political affairs, managing with cautious skill political dealings in almost all countries, according to the degree in which these concerned their particular purposes. Their insolent and illegal acts, their despotism, their ambition, the iron yoke with which they oppressed both kings and peoples; their disputes with the other religious associations, who could not look with pleasure on the predominance and wealth of the new society which so audaciously gathered in the harvest from the fertile vineyard of the Lord; their dangerous maxims in regard to regicide, their demoralizing system of doctrine, their satanic pride and insatiable greed, their hypocrisy and corruption: all these raised against them a unanimous protest. Mistrust of them awoke in kings and peoples; men of sincere purpose and true Christian morals were alarmed; and on every side arose enemies of their order, and irrefutable proofs of their abominable aberrations were brought forward.†(Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142–146.)↑4See detailed account of the so-called “family compact†and the secret agreement which accompanied it, in Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 101–167. At the end he says: “The celebrated ‘family compact’ was never anaffaire de cÅ“ur, but an alliance offensive and defensive in order to check the progress of the British armsin Europa and America, and to dispute with England the maritime supremacy of which she had possessed herself …. The ‘family compact,’ and the secret agreement which completed it, were from the beginning an alliance offensive and defensive of España and France against Great Britain.â€â†‘5Montero y Vidal makes numerous citations (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142, 143, 147–159) from letters written to Pope Innocent X in 1647 and 1649 by the noted bishop of La Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, showing how great wealth and power the Jesuits had attained in Nueva España, their hatred toward him and their conspiracies and even open attacks against him for doing his official duty, and their lawless, scandalous, immoral, and irreligious acts, as he has seen them.↑6In November, 1779, letters were received by the Spanish government from their ambassador at Rome, asking that, in view of the poverty and suffering endured by the ex-Jesuits there, their pensions might be increased. Inquiries were made as to their numbers, with the following results; “On April 1, 1767, there existed in España 1,660 priests, 102 scholastics, and 965 coadjutors,making a total of 2,727. From the seven provinces of the Indias there arrived at the port of Santa MarÃa 1,396 priests, 327 scholastics, and 544 coadjutors, making a total of 2,267. The pensions of both classes amounted to 7,264,650 reals. On April 1, 1779, there existed in Italia 1,274 priests and scholastics, and 664 coadjutors belonging to the four provinces of España [i.e., those of the Jesuit order in that country, being designated as Toledo, Castilla, AndalucÃa, and Aragón], and, confined in them, sixteen priests and five coadjutors, the life-pensions of all these amounting to 2,852,600 reals; and from the seven provinces of Indias there were 1,197 priests and 279 coadjutors, the yearly sum of whose pensions was 2,255,750 reals, including those assigned to the Jesuits confined in España. Thus the difference between 1767 and 1779 was that of 2,151,300 reals, on account of the flight to foreign lands or the [ecclesiastical] suspension of 242 priests, 4 scholastics, and 145 coadjutors, and the death of 1,038 priests and 516 coadjutors. The twelve colleges and the procuradorÃa of the provinces of Méjico and of Filipinas, and of the college of Navarra, yielded 3,665,133 reals, 15 maravedÃs, leaving a surplus of 1,111,408 reals. The expenses for pensions, maintenance in España, clothing, and others which had arisen with the ex-Jesuits from the Indias, up to the end of June, 1779, reached the sum of 45,321,439 reals, 20 maravedÃs; and adding to this 3,086,767 reals, 14 maravedÃs, the value of a certain contribution given by order of his Majesty to the royal hospital of this court, and the payment of debts contracted by some colleges in the Indias, the total is 48,408,207 reals. The temporalities of the Indias were therefore indebted to those of España in 7,077,836 reals, 16 2–3 maravedÃs.†In view of these statistics, the Council did not feel able to increase the amount of the pensions, but agreed to send to the Spanish ambassador at Rome the sum of 1,500,000 reals, to be distributed among the ex-Jesuits in such manner as would best relieve their poverty. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 614, 615.)(The above passage is carefully copied from Danvila, but there are some discrepancies in the figures given; these cannot be verified, of course, without reference to the original document in the Simancas archives cited by the author. These discrepancies are in all probability due to careless proof-reading, some instances of which we have seen in Danvila’s admirable work.)“Some of the expelled [Jesuits] did not content themselves with removing [from Corsica] to the States of the Church andthe Italian cities, but ventured to make their appearance in Barcelona and Gerona; and when the Council committee had notice of this fact they assembled, and decided that the observance of the pragmatic sanction [for the expulsion] ought to be decreed, imposing the penalty of death on the secular lay-brothers, and perpetual confinement on those ordainedin sacris.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 114, 115, 117.) The “suspension†referred to above evidently applies to certain persons who returned to secular life and occupations, some coadjutors even marrying wives.↑7It has been seen (note 135,ante) that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of the visitor Palafox; and the proposal to canonize him, which was made by Carlos III to the pope in 1760, aroused the strong opposition of that order. His letters to the pope in 1647 and 1649 had led to papal decrees enforcing the episcopal authority against the encroachments of the Jesuits, which, after attempting to oppose them, the latter were finally compelled to obey. It was not until 1694 that the ecclesiastical authorities began to examine the writings of Palafox; and it appears that his letter of 1649 was prohibited in theIndex expurgatoriusin 1707 and 1747, and that by an edict of the Inquisition of May 13, 1759 certain letters attributed to him were seized and publicly burned by the hangman—not because there was in them anything deserving theological censure, but on merely technical charges of having been published without the necessary “red tape†prescribed in such cases, and “in order to renew controversies already finished, with the sole object of calumniating and discrediting among the faithful the order of the Society of Jesus, against the intention and good fame of that prelate to whom they were attributed.†The Spanish rulers Felipe V and Fernando VI, and later Carlos III, had all at various times made efforts to have Palafox’s writings examined by the Roman Congregation of Rites; for they regarded him as one of the defenders of the royal right of patronage in America. This was finally accomplished, the Congregation declaring unanimously that they found therein nothing contrary to the faith or to good morals, or to sound doctrine; and that the process for his beatification might now be undertaken. The Pope approved this finding, on December 9, 1760, and on February 5 following the supreme Inquisition of Spain published a decree annulling the above-mentioned prohibitions of his writings. It was thereupon made known to the Spanish ministers that in the Council of the Indias no document remained which favored the cause of Palafox; the records had been cut out and carried away. This mutilation was ascribed to the Jesuits. The beatification of Palafox wasapproved by the Congregation of Rites, and the pope confirmed this on September 6, 1766; but its execution forthwith encountered delays, showing that his enemies in Rome were the same whom he had pointed out in his letter of 1649. (Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 255–270.)↑8This decree, “if we view the occasion of its publication, and the terms in which it is expressed, accepted in the name of the court of Roma the war to which all the Catholic nations were provoking it; and accepted that war without sufficient power to defend itself. The attitude of France, España, Portugal, Naples, and Parma, and later of Vienna, was the result of a new policy which strove to limit the power of the pontificate and to take away its temporal power; and the latter ought not to have begun hostilities without weighing well the consequences, and, above all, without estimating the forces on which it might depend for the combat. The monitory decree of Parma, as the brief of January 30 is called, in which his Holiness protested against all the measures which the Catholic courts were putting into execution, was the origin and cause of the expulsion of the Jesuits by the duchies of Parma and Plasencia; of the prohibition of the circulation in the Catholic states of the bullIn cÅ“na Dominiand of obedience to it; of the reëstablishment in those states of thepase regio, which had been suspended in España since 1763; of barring from circulation the monitory decree, because it was considered hostile to the regalÃas of the crown and to the rights of the sovereigns; of the publication by order of the Council, and at the cost of the Spanish government, of the ‘Imperial judgment,’ in which the rights of the Holy See were limited exclusively to the faith, to matters of dogma, and to purely spiritual matters; of the reprisals with which the pope was threatened if he did not revoke the monitory decree; ofthe occupation of Benevento and Pontecorbo (which was an actual outbreak of hostilities), and the attempt to do the same with Castro and Ronciglione; of a mutual understanding between all the courts hostile to the Holy See; and of the establishment of a general agreement that the extinction of the Society of Jesus would be an indispensable condition for the continuance of correspondence with the court of Roma. The monitory decree of January 30 will signify, in the view of history, the termination of the secular dispute which Roma kept up during two centuries; the triumph of a new policy; and the menace against the temporal power of the popes, which constituted the essential part of the controversy. With the monitory decree, Roma was conquered, and the revolution made rapid advance.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 228–230.)↑9Danvila’s researches in the archives of Simancas brought to light the opinions of the Spanish prelates on the expulsion of the Jesuits from that country; out of sixty, forty-six approved the suppression of the Jesuit order, eight were opposed to it, and six excused themselves from expressing their opinions. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 428, 429.)↑10Among the charges made in this paper is the following: “From Filipinas comes evidence of not only their predictions against the government, but the illicit communication of their provincial with the English commander during the occupation of Manila.â€â†‘11A note by Crétineau-Joly (p. 237) declares that Alva, when on his death-bed, confessed to Felipe Bertram, bishop of Salamanca, the general of the Inquisition, that he “was one of the authors of the uprising of 1766, having incited it in hatred to the Jesuits, and in order to cause it to be imputed to them. He also avowed that he had composed a great part of the supposedletter by the general of the Jesuits against the king of Spain.†A Protestant writer is cited as saying that Alva made this same declaration to Carlos III, in writing.↑12Spanish,capas y sombreros; an edict had been issued forbidding these to be worn by the inhabitants of Madrid.↑13Alluding to accusations against the personal character of Isabel Farnese, Carlos’s mother and wife of Felipe V.↑14“Don Joseph Raon was one of the most shrewd of the governors of Manila in enriching himself without causing any one to complain; but he did nothing whatever for the service of the king. In 1768, Manila was at the same point where the English left it in 1763, without cannon or gunpowder, the troops ill-fed and ill-paid.†(Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 167.) It will be remembered that the French scientist was in Manila at the same time when Raón was.↑15InPolÃtica de España en Filipinas, 1894, pp. 175, 176, Retana describes a collection of documents which he had recently acquired, relating to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the islands. Among these were the officialexpedientes, and a series which contained the inventories of all the property which the Jesuits possessed. The list of the papers and letters found in the college of San Ignacio formed a folio volume of more than 600 pages. (There was also a list of all the books which the Jesuits kept for sale. Among these were more than 200 copies of Noceda’sDiccionario, the first edition, of which copies are now considered exceedingly rare. “In this inventory appear books of which I believe not a single copy is now in existence.â€) The collection thus acquired by Retana contained original letters from Anda and Santa Justa to Conde de Aranda, and others by the Jesuit Clain, Camacho, Raón, Anda, Basco, and other noted persons. At the time, according to Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 222) this collection, which contained more than 20,000 folios, was deposited in the Colegio de Agustinos at Valladolid.↑16It is interesting to compare with this episode that of the banishment of the French Jesuits in Louisiana (1763), as related by Father François P. Watrin; seeJesuit Relations and Allied Documents, lxx (Cleveland, 1900), pp. 211–301. Some of those exiles took refuge in the Spanish-American colonies; others proceeded to France, but found that their order was being driven out of that country.↑17Le Gentil states (Voyage, ii, p. 167) that Cosio was banished to Africa.↑18Doubtless referring to appraisals and inventories made afterward by Anda, who caused this to be done with great exactness.↑19Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, ii, p. 250) of the great college of San Ignacio: “It is said that the building of this church of the Society, its great convent, and the college of San Jose (which it has close by) cost 150,000 pesos;†also that it occupied 34,000 square varas of space (or more than six acres).↑20At a fiesta held in the Jesuit church at Manila, in 1623 the statues of canonized Jesuits were placed at the altar. “Their garments were richly embroidered with gold and silver thread in intricate designs, and were all covered with jewels—diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, seed-pearls, and other precious stones—arranged in such a manner that their luster and varied colors gave them a most pleasing and beautiful appearance. On the image of St. Xavier were faithfully counted more than 15,000 precious stones and pearls, among them more than a thousand diamonds. On that of St. Ignatius there were more than 20,000 jewels, and of these over 800 were diamonds.†(Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 41b, 42.)↑21A royal decree printed at Lima in 1777 orders the presidents and auditors of the audiencias in those regions and Filipinas, and archbishops and bishops in all the Spanish dominions beyond the seas, to exercise great care and vigilance that no person shall talk, write, or argue about the extinction of the Society of Jesus, or the causes which led to it.↑22There is a play on words here,saludmeaning both “greeting†and “salvation.â€â†‘23Contemporaneous documents preserved with this decree by Santa Justa show that the imprints to which he refers were as follows (their titles being here translated):1. “Instruction to the princes regarding the policy of the Jesuit fathers, illustrated with extensive notes, and translated from the Italian into Portuguese, and now into Castilian, with a supplement on the orthodox belief of the Jesuits. With permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the printing-office of Pantaleon Azuar, Arenal street, the house of his Excellency theDuke de Arcos. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in the bookstore of Joseph Botanero on the said street of Arenal, corner of Zarsa street.â€2. “Reflections on the memorial presented to his Holiness Clement XIII by the general of the Jesuits, in which are related various deeds of the superiors and missionaries of that order in all parts of the world, intended to frustrate the measures of the popes against their proceedings and doctrines, but which demonstrate the absolute incorrigibleness of that body. Translated from the Italian. Madrid; by Joachim de Ibarra. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in Francisco Fernandez street, in front of the steps of San Phelipe el Real.â€3. “Continuation of the portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and illustrious Catholics, etc. Third edition, with permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the shop of the widow of Ericeo Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€4. “Portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and most illustrious Catholics: authorized judgment formed of the Jesuits, with authentic and undeniable testimonies by the greatest and most distinguished men of both Church and State, from the year 1540, in which their order was founded, until 1650. Translated from the Portuguese into Castilian, in order to banish the obstinate prejudices and voluntary blindness of many unwary and deluded persons who close their eyes against the beauteous splendor of the truth. Third edition. With permission of the authorities, at Madrid. At the shop of the widow of Elicio Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€â†‘24It seems that Auditor Basaraz prohibited the circulation of these books, in which he was supported by Raón; consequently the books that had been seized were held back, notwithstanding Santa Justa’s protest, and the matter was not settled in court, as it should have been. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 196, 224.)↑25Referring to the Order of St. Francis, since many of its members were martyred in the Japanese persecutions. (About the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits, their enemies declared that, while martyrs abounded in the other religious orders, the Jesuits escaped that fate among the heathen.) In the other missions, the allusion is to the noted controversy over the Chinese rites, in which the Jesuits were accused of undue laxity and connivance with heathen customs; the same accusation was also made against them in some of the American missions.↑
1“All the disputes between España and Roma regarding the nature, extent, and limits of the civil and ecclesiastical jurisdictions—commonly known by the name of theregaliasof the crown—are reflected in the continual conflicts with the nuncio, the inquisitor, and the confessor; and from them arose thepase regioand the disamortization [of corporation lands], in order to make themselves manifest in theexpedientefor the beatification of the venerable Palafox, and to endeavor to find a definitive solution in the expulsion of the Jesuits. Carlos I and Felipe II of Castilla alike considered themselves set apart by God to defend eternally the true faith, with the mission of guarding and protecting the Church; and, like the ancient Roman emperors, in temporal affairs they acknowledged no superiority or limitations on the earth. The king was regarded as a living law, a permanent tribunal, the supreme master and legitimate lord of all his vassals; in one word, the crown was looked upon as the defender of the Church. The conflict of the Middle Ages ended, España aspired to a double social ideal, unity of power and religious unity; and this thought produced concentration, and the desire to separate what was spiritual and concerned with dogma from what was temporal and belonging to the government of peoples. Two distinctideas strove together in the field of doctrine; one, supported by the submissions in former days of the Eastern Empire, claimed to subject temporal monarchs to the supreme political direction of the head of the Catholic Church; and the other, derived from primitive traditions, claimed that the Catholic sovereigns ought to exercise, equally with the pontiffs, the external government of the Church, as its natural protectors. A persistent and obstinate strife arose between the two ideas, and after several centuries the controversy was settled, by limiting the rights of the Holy See to that which concerned dogmas and the spiritual power, and leaving to the royal authority all that referred to discipline and the exercise of government, in whatever relates to the security of the State and the welfare of the people. It is this which with some unfitness has been calledregalÃas; and at bottom it has been nothing more than the recovery of the proper character of the civil power, and the demarcation of the attributes of the power of the Church and the State. This demarcation, the strife over which lasted for entire centuries, was recognized in España by the concordat of 1753, in which is declared the right of [ecclesiastical] patronage of the kings of España; and to it theexequatur, disamortization, and the reform of both the regular and secular clergy, served them as a complement.†(Danvila,Reinado de Carlos III, ii, pp. 270, 271.)
Thepase regio(Latin,exequatur) above mentioned refers to the prerogative assumed by the Spanish kings of the right to “pass†or confirm papal edicts or briefs, or those issued by other foreign ecclesiastics, or by the superiors of religious orders, before these could be valid in the Spanish dominions; several instances of this have already been mentioned in documents of this series. “Disamortization†(a word which, as the standard English lexicons contain no single word which expresses exactly the idea conveyed in the Spanishdesamortización, we are obliged to coin for this purpose, simply transferring it, in English form, from the Spanish) means the act of setting free any lands which had been conveyed, in mortmain, to the corporations (mainly religious), that is, enabling other persons to acquire such lands. Theexequaturis called by Danvila (ii, p. 281) “the most transcendent of the regalÃas of the crown.â€â†‘
2It may be noted that all these high ecclesiastics signed the reports of the Council justifying the expulsion of the Jesuits, and that the archbishop of Manila (Santa Justa) is cited in various documents as having counseled the king to banish that order from his dominions.↑
3“It is known that the Society of Jesus was, more than a religious association, in reality a great mercantile company, from a very short time after its institution until its extinction by Clement XIV. Its vast commercial transactions in Europe, America, and Oceania furnished to it immense wealth; and, infatuated with their power and the dominion which they exercised over the minds of their ardent followers; having gained possession as they had done of the confessional and directing the consciences of kings and magnates; and strengthened by the affection (which they exploited with great ability) of women—upon whom they always have exercised, as they still do, a magnetic influence—the Jesuits considered themselves absolute masters of the world; and they devoted themselves to intervention in political affairs, managing with cautious skill political dealings in almost all countries, according to the degree in which these concerned their particular purposes. Their insolent and illegal acts, their despotism, their ambition, the iron yoke with which they oppressed both kings and peoples; their disputes with the other religious associations, who could not look with pleasure on the predominance and wealth of the new society which so audaciously gathered in the harvest from the fertile vineyard of the Lord; their dangerous maxims in regard to regicide, their demoralizing system of doctrine, their satanic pride and insatiable greed, their hypocrisy and corruption: all these raised against them a unanimous protest. Mistrust of them awoke in kings and peoples; men of sincere purpose and true Christian morals were alarmed; and on every side arose enemies of their order, and irrefutable proofs of their abominable aberrations were brought forward.†(Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142–146.)↑
4See detailed account of the so-called “family compact†and the secret agreement which accompanied it, in Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 101–167. At the end he says: “The celebrated ‘family compact’ was never anaffaire de cÅ“ur, but an alliance offensive and defensive in order to check the progress of the British armsin Europa and America, and to dispute with England the maritime supremacy of which she had possessed herself …. The ‘family compact,’ and the secret agreement which completed it, were from the beginning an alliance offensive and defensive of España and France against Great Britain.â€â†‘
5Montero y Vidal makes numerous citations (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 142, 143, 147–159) from letters written to Pope Innocent X in 1647 and 1649 by the noted bishop of La Puebla, Juan de Palafox y Mendoza, showing how great wealth and power the Jesuits had attained in Nueva España, their hatred toward him and their conspiracies and even open attacks against him for doing his official duty, and their lawless, scandalous, immoral, and irreligious acts, as he has seen them.↑
6In November, 1779, letters were received by the Spanish government from their ambassador at Rome, asking that, in view of the poverty and suffering endured by the ex-Jesuits there, their pensions might be increased. Inquiries were made as to their numbers, with the following results; “On April 1, 1767, there existed in España 1,660 priests, 102 scholastics, and 965 coadjutors,making a total of 2,727. From the seven provinces of the Indias there arrived at the port of Santa MarÃa 1,396 priests, 327 scholastics, and 544 coadjutors, making a total of 2,267. The pensions of both classes amounted to 7,264,650 reals. On April 1, 1779, there existed in Italia 1,274 priests and scholastics, and 664 coadjutors belonging to the four provinces of España [i.e., those of the Jesuit order in that country, being designated as Toledo, Castilla, AndalucÃa, and Aragón], and, confined in them, sixteen priests and five coadjutors, the life-pensions of all these amounting to 2,852,600 reals; and from the seven provinces of Indias there were 1,197 priests and 279 coadjutors, the yearly sum of whose pensions was 2,255,750 reals, including those assigned to the Jesuits confined in España. Thus the difference between 1767 and 1779 was that of 2,151,300 reals, on account of the flight to foreign lands or the [ecclesiastical] suspension of 242 priests, 4 scholastics, and 145 coadjutors, and the death of 1,038 priests and 516 coadjutors. The twelve colleges and the procuradorÃa of the provinces of Méjico and of Filipinas, and of the college of Navarra, yielded 3,665,133 reals, 15 maravedÃs, leaving a surplus of 1,111,408 reals. The expenses for pensions, maintenance in España, clothing, and others which had arisen with the ex-Jesuits from the Indias, up to the end of June, 1779, reached the sum of 45,321,439 reals, 20 maravedÃs; and adding to this 3,086,767 reals, 14 maravedÃs, the value of a certain contribution given by order of his Majesty to the royal hospital of this court, and the payment of debts contracted by some colleges in the Indias, the total is 48,408,207 reals. The temporalities of the Indias were therefore indebted to those of España in 7,077,836 reals, 16 2–3 maravedÃs.†In view of these statistics, the Council did not feel able to increase the amount of the pensions, but agreed to send to the Spanish ambassador at Rome the sum of 1,500,000 reals, to be distributed among the ex-Jesuits in such manner as would best relieve their poverty. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 614, 615.)
(The above passage is carefully copied from Danvila, but there are some discrepancies in the figures given; these cannot be verified, of course, without reference to the original document in the Simancas archives cited by the author. These discrepancies are in all probability due to careless proof-reading, some instances of which we have seen in Danvila’s admirable work.)
“Some of the expelled [Jesuits] did not content themselves with removing [from Corsica] to the States of the Church andthe Italian cities, but ventured to make their appearance in Barcelona and Gerona; and when the Council committee had notice of this fact they assembled, and decided that the observance of the pragmatic sanction [for the expulsion] ought to be decreed, imposing the penalty of death on the secular lay-brothers, and perpetual confinement on those ordainedin sacris.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 114, 115, 117.) The “suspension†referred to above evidently applies to certain persons who returned to secular life and occupations, some coadjutors even marrying wives.↑
7It has been seen (note 135,ante) that the Jesuits were bitter enemies of the visitor Palafox; and the proposal to canonize him, which was made by Carlos III to the pope in 1760, aroused the strong opposition of that order. His letters to the pope in 1647 and 1649 had led to papal decrees enforcing the episcopal authority against the encroachments of the Jesuits, which, after attempting to oppose them, the latter were finally compelled to obey. It was not until 1694 that the ecclesiastical authorities began to examine the writings of Palafox; and it appears that his letter of 1649 was prohibited in theIndex expurgatoriusin 1707 and 1747, and that by an edict of the Inquisition of May 13, 1759 certain letters attributed to him were seized and publicly burned by the hangman—not because there was in them anything deserving theological censure, but on merely technical charges of having been published without the necessary “red tape†prescribed in such cases, and “in order to renew controversies already finished, with the sole object of calumniating and discrediting among the faithful the order of the Society of Jesus, against the intention and good fame of that prelate to whom they were attributed.†The Spanish rulers Felipe V and Fernando VI, and later Carlos III, had all at various times made efforts to have Palafox’s writings examined by the Roman Congregation of Rites; for they regarded him as one of the defenders of the royal right of patronage in America. This was finally accomplished, the Congregation declaring unanimously that they found therein nothing contrary to the faith or to good morals, or to sound doctrine; and that the process for his beatification might now be undertaken. The Pope approved this finding, on December 9, 1760, and on February 5 following the supreme Inquisition of Spain published a decree annulling the above-mentioned prohibitions of his writings. It was thereupon made known to the Spanish ministers that in the Council of the Indias no document remained which favored the cause of Palafox; the records had been cut out and carried away. This mutilation was ascribed to the Jesuits. The beatification of Palafox wasapproved by the Congregation of Rites, and the pope confirmed this on September 6, 1766; but its execution forthwith encountered delays, showing that his enemies in Rome were the same whom he had pointed out in his letter of 1649. (Danvila,op. cit., ii, pp. 255–270.)↑
8This decree, “if we view the occasion of its publication, and the terms in which it is expressed, accepted in the name of the court of Roma the war to which all the Catholic nations were provoking it; and accepted that war without sufficient power to defend itself. The attitude of France, España, Portugal, Naples, and Parma, and later of Vienna, was the result of a new policy which strove to limit the power of the pontificate and to take away its temporal power; and the latter ought not to have begun hostilities without weighing well the consequences, and, above all, without estimating the forces on which it might depend for the combat. The monitory decree of Parma, as the brief of January 30 is called, in which his Holiness protested against all the measures which the Catholic courts were putting into execution, was the origin and cause of the expulsion of the Jesuits by the duchies of Parma and Plasencia; of the prohibition of the circulation in the Catholic states of the bullIn cÅ“na Dominiand of obedience to it; of the reëstablishment in those states of thepase regio, which had been suspended in España since 1763; of barring from circulation the monitory decree, because it was considered hostile to the regalÃas of the crown and to the rights of the sovereigns; of the publication by order of the Council, and at the cost of the Spanish government, of the ‘Imperial judgment,’ in which the rights of the Holy See were limited exclusively to the faith, to matters of dogma, and to purely spiritual matters; of the reprisals with which the pope was threatened if he did not revoke the monitory decree; ofthe occupation of Benevento and Pontecorbo (which was an actual outbreak of hostilities), and the attempt to do the same with Castro and Ronciglione; of a mutual understanding between all the courts hostile to the Holy See; and of the establishment of a general agreement that the extinction of the Society of Jesus would be an indispensable condition for the continuance of correspondence with the court of Roma. The monitory decree of January 30 will signify, in the view of history, the termination of the secular dispute which Roma kept up during two centuries; the triumph of a new policy; and the menace against the temporal power of the popes, which constituted the essential part of the controversy. With the monitory decree, Roma was conquered, and the revolution made rapid advance.†(Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 228–230.)↑
9Danvila’s researches in the archives of Simancas brought to light the opinions of the Spanish prelates on the expulsion of the Jesuits from that country; out of sixty, forty-six approved the suppression of the Jesuit order, eight were opposed to it, and six excused themselves from expressing their opinions. (Danvila,op. cit., iii, pp. 428, 429.)↑
10Among the charges made in this paper is the following: “From Filipinas comes evidence of not only their predictions against the government, but the illicit communication of their provincial with the English commander during the occupation of Manila.â€â†‘
11A note by Crétineau-Joly (p. 237) declares that Alva, when on his death-bed, confessed to Felipe Bertram, bishop of Salamanca, the general of the Inquisition, that he “was one of the authors of the uprising of 1766, having incited it in hatred to the Jesuits, and in order to cause it to be imputed to them. He also avowed that he had composed a great part of the supposedletter by the general of the Jesuits against the king of Spain.†A Protestant writer is cited as saying that Alva made this same declaration to Carlos III, in writing.↑
12Spanish,capas y sombreros; an edict had been issued forbidding these to be worn by the inhabitants of Madrid.↑
13Alluding to accusations against the personal character of Isabel Farnese, Carlos’s mother and wife of Felipe V.↑
14“Don Joseph Raon was one of the most shrewd of the governors of Manila in enriching himself without causing any one to complain; but he did nothing whatever for the service of the king. In 1768, Manila was at the same point where the English left it in 1763, without cannon or gunpowder, the troops ill-fed and ill-paid.†(Le Gentil,Voyage, ii, p. 167.) It will be remembered that the French scientist was in Manila at the same time when Raón was.↑
15InPolÃtica de España en Filipinas, 1894, pp. 175, 176, Retana describes a collection of documents which he had recently acquired, relating to the expulsion of the Jesuits from the islands. Among these were the officialexpedientes, and a series which contained the inventories of all the property which the Jesuits possessed. The list of the papers and letters found in the college of San Ignacio formed a folio volume of more than 600 pages. (There was also a list of all the books which the Jesuits kept for sale. Among these were more than 200 copies of Noceda’sDiccionario, the first edition, of which copies are now considered exceedingly rare. “In this inventory appear books of which I believe not a single copy is now in existence.â€) The collection thus acquired by Retana contained original letters from Anda and Santa Justa to Conde de Aranda, and others by the Jesuit Clain, Camacho, Raón, Anda, Basco, and other noted persons. At the time, according to Montero y Vidal (Hist. de Filipinas, ii, p. 222) this collection, which contained more than 20,000 folios, was deposited in the Colegio de Agustinos at Valladolid.↑
16It is interesting to compare with this episode that of the banishment of the French Jesuits in Louisiana (1763), as related by Father François P. Watrin; seeJesuit Relations and Allied Documents, lxx (Cleveland, 1900), pp. 211–301. Some of those exiles took refuge in the Spanish-American colonies; others proceeded to France, but found that their order was being driven out of that country.↑
17Le Gentil states (Voyage, ii, p. 167) that Cosio was banished to Africa.↑
18Doubtless referring to appraisals and inventories made afterward by Anda, who caused this to be done with great exactness.↑
19Buzeta and Bravo say (Diccionario, ii, p. 250) of the great college of San Ignacio: “It is said that the building of this church of the Society, its great convent, and the college of San Jose (which it has close by) cost 150,000 pesos;†also that it occupied 34,000 square varas of space (or more than six acres).↑
20At a fiesta held in the Jesuit church at Manila, in 1623 the statues of canonized Jesuits were placed at the altar. “Their garments were richly embroidered with gold and silver thread in intricate designs, and were all covered with jewels—diamonds, pearls, rubies, emeralds, seed-pearls, and other precious stones—arranged in such a manner that their luster and varied colors gave them a most pleasing and beautiful appearance. On the image of St. Xavier were faithfully counted more than 15,000 precious stones and pearls, among them more than a thousand diamonds. On that of St. Ignatius there were more than 20,000 jewels, and of these over 800 were diamonds.†(Murillo Velarde,Hist. de Philipinas, fol. 41b, 42.)↑
21A royal decree printed at Lima in 1777 orders the presidents and auditors of the audiencias in those regions and Filipinas, and archbishops and bishops in all the Spanish dominions beyond the seas, to exercise great care and vigilance that no person shall talk, write, or argue about the extinction of the Society of Jesus, or the causes which led to it.↑
22There is a play on words here,saludmeaning both “greeting†and “salvation.â€â†‘
23Contemporaneous documents preserved with this decree by Santa Justa show that the imprints to which he refers were as follows (their titles being here translated):
1. “Instruction to the princes regarding the policy of the Jesuit fathers, illustrated with extensive notes, and translated from the Italian into Portuguese, and now into Castilian, with a supplement on the orthodox belief of the Jesuits. With permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the printing-office of Pantaleon Azuar, Arenal street, the house of his Excellency theDuke de Arcos. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in the bookstore of Joseph Botanero on the said street of Arenal, corner of Zarsa street.â€
2. “Reflections on the memorial presented to his Holiness Clement XIII by the general of the Jesuits, in which are related various deeds of the superiors and missionaries of that order in all parts of the world, intended to frustrate the measures of the popes against their proceedings and doctrines, but which demonstrate the absolute incorrigibleness of that body. Translated from the Italian. Madrid; by Joachim de Ibarra. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight. This will be found in Francisco Fernandez street, in front of the steps of San Phelipe el Real.â€
3. “Continuation of the portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and illustrious Catholics, etc. Third edition, with permission of the authorities. At Madrid, in the shop of the widow of Ericeo Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€
4. “Portraiture of the Jesuits, drawn to the life by the most learned and most illustrious Catholics: authorized judgment formed of the Jesuits, with authentic and undeniable testimonies by the greatest and most distinguished men of both Church and State, from the year 1540, in which their order was founded, until 1650. Translated from the Portuguese into Castilian, in order to banish the obstinate prejudices and voluntary blindness of many unwary and deluded persons who close their eyes against the beauteous splendor of the truth. Third edition. With permission of the authorities, at Madrid. At the shop of the widow of Elicio Sanchez. In the year one thousand, seven hundred, and sixty-eight.â€â†‘
24It seems that Auditor Basaraz prohibited the circulation of these books, in which he was supported by Raón; consequently the books that had been seized were held back, notwithstanding Santa Justa’s protest, and the matter was not settled in court, as it should have been. (Montero y Vidal,Hist. de Filipinas, ii, pp. 196, 224.)↑
25Referring to the Order of St. Francis, since many of its members were martyred in the Japanese persecutions. (About the time of the expulsion of the Jesuits, their enemies declared that, while martyrs abounded in the other religious orders, the Jesuits escaped that fate among the heathen.) In the other missions, the allusion is to the noted controversy over the Chinese rites, in which the Jesuits were accused of undue laxity and connivance with heathen customs; the same accusation was also made against them in some of the American missions.↑