The new Conspiracy against the Jesuits detected and exposed.

Your absence from this country, and the observation of the historian, which I have adopted as a motto, will plead my excuse for dedicating this volume to you, without a previous intimation of my wish for that honour to my work and to myself. "The causes {vi}of the ruin of the society of Jesuits, with its circumstances and effects, are worthy of your attention." I have bestowed a considerable degree of labour in making myself acquainted with them, and, having been induced to throw the result of my inquiries into the form of a book, I know not to whom I can better present it than to a man, who, among the services which he has been active in rendering to his country, in her legislation and letters, has been the liberal advocate of the catholic body in general, and who, I am confident, will be pleased to see any society, or any individual, rescued from opprobrium, which time and colouring may have fixed on character. You are on the spot, Sir, where the Jesuits were persecuted with the greatest virulence; a circumstance, to {vii}my apprehension, not the most favourable to the investigation of truth, as it may well be imagined, that the prejudices, which were raised by the unprincipled and unrelenting minister of Joseph I, of Portugal, have too strongly enveloped it to be easily removed: but there are minds gifted with a discernment approaching to intuition, and, if any man can unweave the web, which has been spun around this unfortunate society, to your penetration may it be trusted. I have examined the subject with sincerity and disinterestedness, and, from conviction, I feel such interest in the establishment of the facts which I have stated, and the conclusions which I have drawn, that I dare hope that what I here offer to your consideration will one day be corroborated by testimony and {viii}talents, that shall remove all the doubt which the feebleness of my pen may leave upon it.

PREFACE.

Having formerly occupied my thoughts on the subject of promoting the knowledge and practice of religion among the Negroes in the West Indies, I was naturally led to inquire into the means, which had been successfully adopted in the catholic islands. I traced them to the enthusiastic labours of the clergy in general, particularly the Jesuits. The conduct of the fathers of that society in South America, not only excited in me admiration, but the highest esteem, veneration, and affection, for that enlightened and persevering body in the Christian cause, who had spread over the immense regions of that {x}continent more virtue and real temporal happiness than were enjoyed by any other quarter of the globe, as well as a well founded hope of eternal felicity, by the redemption of mankind through Christ. This undeniable merit made such an impression on my mind, that I never gave credit to the horrors, which have been attributed to the society.

Among the objects of my attention, during a late residence in France, the restoration of the order became an interesting one, affording me some pleasing conversations, and inducing me to search into authorities respecting the actions and character of men, whom I had learned to venerate and to love, the result of which was a confirmation of my early predilection. On my return from the continent a short time since, I met with a pamphlet {xi}lately published, entitled "A Brief Account of the Jesuits," the ostensible object of which is to render the order odious, but the real one is seen to be an attempt to attach odium upon catholics in general, in the present crisis of the catholic question. I learned, from a literary friend, that this pamphlet had originally appeared as Letters in a newspaper, and that they had been answered in the same way, but that the answers had not been republished. These I obtained and perused. I received much satisfaction from them, and thought them worthy of being preserved. They did not, however, appear to me sufficiently full upon the subject, and I therefore resolved to publish them in the form of a pamphlet, with a preliminary statement. I consequently renewed my inquiries, and the more I inquire the more am I satisfied, that my veneration for this body of Christian instructors is not misplaced. {xii}

It is perfectly evident to me, that there was an unjust conspiracy, which originated in France, to destroy the Jesuits; and that it terminated successfully about the middle of the last century. It is not an easy task to unfold to its full extent the injustice and various iniquities of it, since even respectable historians have been led away by the imposing appearance, which the then undetected and half-unconscious ingenious agents of jacobinism had, by every expedient of invention, of colouring, and of wit, given to the hue and cry raised by those bitter enemies of the order, the university and parliaments of France, and by some ministers of other governments, particularly by the marquis de Pombal, the minister of the king of Portugal. It is not my intention to undertake so laborious a task, but I trust, that the following exposition will unfold sufficient {xiii}of the injustice, which has been so unfeelingly and indefatigably heaped upon the Jesuits, to convince every unprejudiced man, that the suppression of the order has been injurious to society, and that the revival of it, far from being dangerous, must be beneficial. I am not afraid, that this expression of my sentiment will draw upon me any suspicion of disaffection to the state, or the established church; my sentiments are well known to my friends, and have been more than once publicly professed. The benefit, which I think will arise from the restoration of the society, will consist more particularly in the active and zealous cultivation of Christian virtues, and a spirit of LOYALTY among the catholics of all countries, whether protestant or catholic; and, unless we mean to say, with some of the furious reformers, that the religion of the catholics is to be {xiv}extirpated altogether, it is absurd to say, that they shall not have their best and most active instructors.

When this volume had nearly gone through the press, in the course of reading I met with the following curious passage, extracted from a Letter to a Noble Lord by a Country Gentleman, entitled "Considerations on the Penal Laws," &c. published by the Dodsleys, of Pall-Mall, so long ago as 1764, about two years after the suppression of the Jesuits in France, and eleven previous to their total suppression by Clement XIV; I insert it, as I think it will not be unacceptable to the reader:—"The rising generation are now forming their principles on the writings of Voltaire, Rousseau, D'Argens, and the philosopher of Sans-Souci; to whom may be added a long catalogue of authors of our own {xv}country. In France grave magistrates already celebrate and THE FIRST COURTS OF JUDICATURE echo with the praises of Julian and Diocletian; calculations are made, and the period is pretended to be fixed, when Christianity is to be no more. The powerful weapon of ridicule is employed not against popery alone, but to render contemptible the whole Jewish and Christian revelation." The grave magistrates, and first courts of judicature, are no other than the French parliaments, who, we are informed by a member of the lower house, were "ever ready to support the national independence^[1]:" we see by what steps, and we have felt with what success.

In the following pages, I have shown, {xvi}that those courts of judicature (which, far from being the immediate organs of the monarchs of France, as the same member asserts, were, for the greater part of the last century, in constant opposition to them, and the organs of rebellion) had conspired to effect the destruction of the Jesuits; and, I suspect, that "the mass of information," which supplies the proofs of the nascent revolutionary spirit, and which is to be met with in the histories of all Europe, are documents resulting from the piques and resentments of Pombal and other arbitrary ministers, who chose to take the consciences of their princes under their own care. These documents, afforded indeed by a most respected character, are nevertheless open to all the objections that arise from the principles and history of the intrigues of the ordinances alluded to. There is however some decency in recurring to {xvii}ordinances to found charges upon; the enemies of the Jesuits were not always so nice, as the following extract from one of their calumniators will show:—"When the Jesuits revolutionized Portugal, in 1667, and placed on the throne the infant don Pedro, sir Robert Southwell was there, as our ambassador from Charles II. His very curious correspondence with the duke of Ormond and lord Arlington is extant, and is a precious fragment of a great political event. The silent intrigues of the Jesuits do not seem to have been known to sir Robert; but, according to the Recueil Chronologique, published by the court of Portugal, it is evident they were the principal actors, who, having overturned the monarchy, afterwards suppressed the democracy, and then, substituting an apparent aristocracy, reigned for some time over Portugal, concealed under that {xviii}cloak." This is a fine specimen of the warfare carried on against the society. The ambassador's ignorance of the intrigues of the Jesuits is not brought forward as a proof of their innocence, but as a reason why we should believe Pombal. As to the revolutionizing Portugal, and placing don Pedro on the throne, the ambassador could have been no stranger to the real causes of don Pedro's being proclaimed regent during the life of his brother Alonzo, from the incapacity of the latter, and the intrigues, first of his mother, and afterwards of his wife, the princess of Nemours.

I would here leave the reader, with this fact fresh on his mind, to enter upon the book before him, but that I wish to detain him a moment longer to request him to carry also along with him the asseveration {xix}of the author, that he is entirely unconnected with the individuals of the body, whose character it is the object of this volume to place in a just point of view. Though familiar with accounts of the society, I am unacquainted with a single individual of it. The interest I feel is that which has been inspired by their virtues, and by the injustice and cruelty of their enemies, which I have ascertained to my complete conviction.

At the end of Henry IV's speech, add a reference to Dupleix, the same historian referred to in page 72. The speech is also to be found in the Memoirs of the Minister Villeroi, the confidant of Henry IV, in the Pleadings of Montholon, in the French Mercury of 1604, and in Matthieu, Henry IV's historiographer, whom that prince himself furnished with memoirs for his history. De Thou himself reports it, but in a mangled way, and professedly as an extract, yet clearly enough to corroborate the substance of it.

NEW CONSPIRACY

A G A I N S T T H E J E S U I T S ,

INTRODUCTION.

If there were a question whether there should be a change in the religion of the state, or whether the sceptre of Great Britain were better placed in the hand of a protestant or a catholic prince, my voice, slender as it is, should eagerly profess my attachment to the monarchy, and to the church of England. But no such question exists, or is likely to exist, in the contemplation of British subjects, of any persuasion or denomination whatever. It is with this conviction {2}on my mind, that I have resolved to publish the result of my inquiries respecting the Jesuits, and to show, that they do not merit the virulent slanders with which they have been attacked, or the treatment, horrid and inhuman, which they were made to suffer. A violent pamphlet, entitled "A brief Account of the Jesuits," lately republished from a newspaper, shall serve to direct me over the mass of abuse, which I purpose to clear away in such a manner as to enable the reader to proceed, without prejudice, to the perusal of the following Letters, to which partiality might otherwise be attributed. They are replies to some of the charges of the writer of the pamphlet, and they also appeared in a newspaper, with the signature of Clericus, the assailant having assumed that of Laicus, which I mention, as it may be convenient for me to use these names occasionally.

I purpose, 1st, to make some remarks on the objects of the author of the pamphlet, in his attack upon the Jesuits, and on his mode {3}of conducting his argument: 2dly, to examine the character of the authorities against the Jesuits, called by the writer historical evidences; and of those in favour of them; and to notice some of the charges against the society: 3dly, to give a brief account of the order, and of the fundamental character of it, with the prominent features of the Institute of Loyola, contrasted with the libellous Monita Secreta: and, 4thly, to conclude with observations arising out of the preceding subjects, and on the necessity of making religion the basis of education.

CHAPTER I.

The professed objects of the author of a pamphlet, entitled "A brief Account of the Jesuits," as stated in a preface, are "to examine the propriety of extending papal patronage and protestant protection to the Jesuits, and, as stated in page 2 of the pamphlet, to show, that the revival of the order is so pregnant with danger as to call for the interference of parliament." The plan he pursues to effect these objects is, to give a summary of the history of the order, to furnish some historical evidences in support of its correctness, and to argue from these for the affirmative of his proposition. The plan is well enough laid; but the author {6}has executed it in such a manner as to make it evident, that he was not in search of truth, that he deceives himself if he thinks he was, that he is only a violent and abusive disputant, that he is an enemy to the catholics in general, and that, the question on their claims being exhausted, he renovates the combat by attacking them through the sides of the Jesuits. When an advocate handles a cause, which it is his duty to gain for his client, we know, that he brings forward every fact, and urges every argument, that tends to support the positions on which his cause hinges, sedulously masking every circumstance that contravenes his statement, and avoiding every suggestion that weakens his reasoning upon it. But the man, who is in pursuit of truth, of whatever nature it be, looks at his object on all sides; he handles it, not to make of it what he wishes, but to determine what it is; he analyses, he re-composes; he takes the good and the bad as he finds them, and truth results from his investigation. Let us see which of these two characters belongs to the writer of the pamphlet. Every word of his {7}"Historical Summary" is intended to place the Jesuits in an odious point of view; nor is a single sentence admitted into it by which one could be led to imagine, that any thing good had ever originated from them, or that they were not universally demons in the shape of men. The writer goes in search of matter to compile his Summary, and he finds an account of the Jesuits composed on the authority of various publications, which have appeared at different times. In a part of this narrative, he finds all that has been said to blacken the order, and, also, a genuine passage of their history, which no man of any feeling can read without enthusiastic admiration; now, would the writer, who was in search of truth, have selected only that which was calculated to produce condemnation, without giving his reader an opportunity of comparing facts and drawing his own inferences? Yet this is really the case with this enemy of the catholic cause, whose Summary is verbatim extracted from Robertson's Charles V, as far as it answered the purpose of {8}his attack. Who, after reading the part selected, would suspect, if he did not know it before, that the following paragraph, from the same elegant pen, closed the character of the Jesuits, and must have confounded the eye of their assailant, since it failed to wring a tribute of praise from his heart?—"But as I have pointed out the dangerous tendency of the constitution and spirit of the order with the freedom becoming an historian, the candour and impartiality no less requisite in that character call on me to add one observation: That no class of regular clergy in the Romish church has been more eminent for decency, and even purity of manners, than the major part of the order of Jesuits. The maxims of an intriguing, ambitious, interested policy, might influence those, who governed the society, and might even corrupt the heart, and pervert the conduct of some individuals, while the greater number, engaged in literary pursuits, or employed in the functions of religion, was left to the guidance of those common principles, which restrain men from {9}vice, and excite them to what is becoming and laudable^[2]."

The author, in a note, acknowledges, that his Summary does not wholly lay claim to {11}originality. It is, in fact, all copied: why then did he not cite his authority? and, when he was copying, why did he omit to copy the passages that stared him in the face? Clearly from an attorney-like motive, because it would have injured his cause, and would have prepossessed his reader with an idea, that, whether the charges against some of the rulers of the order were well-founded or not, the generality of the Jesuits were estimable men, devoting themselves to the good of mankind, and who had spread over the earth a very considerable share of human happiness: clearly because he foresaw, that his reader would argue with himself, that if, in despotic times, only a few busied themselves with political affairs, while the body at large were good men, engaged in zealously promoting the welfare, both temporal and eternal, of their fellow-creatures, it would be unnatural to suppose, that, in the present enlightened times, the many would become corrupt, or even the few engage again in intrigues dangerous to society; and that he {12}would conclude, that the labour of the author resolved itself into a new attempt against tolerating the catholic religion; while in favour of toleration he would find, in addition to the suggestions of his reason, his memory supplied with innumerable, irrefragable arguments, which for years past have resounded throughout the empire, in the houses of parliament as well as in the remotest villages, enforced by princes of the realm with all the energy of learning and of eloquence, as well as by individuals of every class of men, in speeches, and in writings, in books, pamphlets, and the columns of such newspapers as are open to liberal discussion^[3].

The writer of the pamphlet, not satisfied with omitting whatever might tend to defeat his object, industriously rakes out the most atrocious imputations from the avowed enemies of the Jesuits, and classes their authorities with genuine history, taking them for granted, never examining the hands through which they passed, happy in having one and only one great name on his side, that of the celebrated and very extraordinary genius, Pascal. When the Provincial Letters were alluded to, as attacking a supposed lax system of morals, did not truth require that they should be stated to have been the satirical effusions of a writer, who had espoused the cause of the Jansenists, the violent opposers of the Jesuits; and that the ridicule which they contained had been declared by another great wit, who was no enemy to ridicule, nor friend to religion (Voltaire), to be completely misapplied. A lover of truth, when {14}balancing opinions as proofs, would not have failed to quote from him the following passage: "It is true, indeed, that the whole book (the Provincial Letters) was built upon a false foundation; for the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and Flemish Jesuits were artfully ascribed to the whole society. Many absurdities might likewise have been discovered among the Dominican and Franciscan casuists, but this would not have answered the purpose, for the whole raillery was to be levelled only at the Jesuits. These letters were intended to prove, that the Jesuits had formed a design to corrupt mankind; a design which no sect of society ever had, or can have."

With such enemies as the Jansenists, will it be thought extraordinary, that a thousand fabrications of those days blackening the Jesuits may be referred to? With such enemies as in later times appeared against them, in the host of new philosophers and jacobins, is it wonderful that there should be modern forgeries? {15}One such suffrage, as that which I have quoted from Robertson, is of itself sufficient to outweigh folios of charges originating in the jealous passions of a rival sect, in the effusions of a mad mistaken philosophy, or in magisterial persecution, which, to use the vigorous language of a living genius, in "the destruction of the Jesuits, that memorable instance of puerile oppression, of jealousy, ambition, injustice, and barbarity, for these all concurred in the act, gave to public education a wound, which a whole century perhaps will not be able to heal. It freed the phalanx of materialists from a body of opponents, which still made them tremble. It remotely encouraged the formation of sanguinary clubs, by causing the withdrawing of all religious and prudent congregations, in which the savage populace of the Faubourg St. Antoine were tamed by the disciples of an Ignatius and a Xavier. Such men as Porée and La Rue, Vaniere and Jouvenci, in the academic chairs; Bourdaloue, Cheminais, Neuville, L'Enfant, in the pulpit; {16}Segaud, Duplessis, and Beauregard^[4], in the processions of the cross, in the public streets and ways, were, perhaps, alike necessary to secure tranquillity in this world and happiness in the next^[5]."

In assisting my memory, I have been led to compare the writer's extracts from Robertson with the pages of the historian himself, and I have found him, not only occasionally disfiguring the style on points of little moment, by turning the words, but giving to the author's words a sense which they were not intended to bear, by means of Italic types and additions. For instance: the historian says, "As it was the professed intention of the order of Jesuits to labour with {17}unwearied zeal in promoting the salvation of men, this engaged them, of course, in many active functions." On reading Robertson's work, would any one imagine, that the author meant to insinuate, that the intention was insincere, and a mere cloak to political vices? Is it not clear from all he writes, as well as from this passage taken singly, that he gave the Jesuits credit for their sincerity in devoting themselves to the salvation of men? Yet has the writer of the pamphlet, by causing the word professed to be printed in Italics, called upon his reader to take his sense of Robertson's words, and to believe, that the word professed implies deceit, instead of the open and declared intention of the Jesuits. Not content with this low falsifying of Robertson's ideas by Italic implication, he practises the same trick by an Italic addition of some lines of his own to the text of the historian, as follows: "their great and leading maxim having uniformly been, to do evil that good might come." Can any thing be more reprehensible? {18}

I will adduce one instance more of the disingenuousness of this writer. Speaking, exclusively, of the Jesuits, he charges them with "rendering Christianity utterly odious in the vast empire of Japan^[6]," and with "enormities in China Proper." To have implicated other priests would not, as Voltaire observed, answer the purpose: the Jesuits, as before, must be isolated to be recrushed. Now, in this, as in the other accusations, we shall find the anti-catholic writers including other orders. Let us see what one of these writers says upon this occasion: after speaking of the pride, avarice, and folly of the clergy, he tells us of an {19}execution of twenty-six persons, "in the number whereof were two foreign Jesuits, and several other fathers of the Franciscan order." And a little after, the same writer says, "some Franciscan friars were guilty at this time of a most imprudent step: they, during the whole of their abode in the country, preached openly in the streets of Macao, where they resided; and of their own accord built a church, contrary to the imperial commands, and contrary to the advice and earnest solicitations of the Jesuits^[7]." The authority of the Encyclopedia Britannica will not be objected to by the enemies of the catholics; nor, I presume, will that of Montesquieu, who gives a very different reason for the Christian religion being so odious in Japan: "We have already," says he, "mentioned the perverse temper of the people of Japan. The magistrates considered the firmness which Christianity inspires, when they attempted to make the people renounce their faith, as in {20}itself most dangerous: they fancied that it increased their obstinacy. The law of Japan punishes severely the least disobedience. They ordered them to renounce the Christian religion: they did not renounce it; this was disobedience: they punished this crime; and the continuance in disobedience seemed to deserve another punishment^[8]." As to the enormities in China, we shall find, upon inquiry, that the Jesuits were not more responsible for those. The following is an extract from a geographical account of China: "P. Michael Rogu, a Neapolitan Jesuit, first opened the mission in China, and led the way in which those of his order that followed him have acquired so much reputation. He was succeeded by P. Ricci, of the same society, who continued the work with such success, that he is considered by the Jesuits as the principal founder of this mission. He was a man of very extraordinary talents. He had the art of rendering himself agreeable {21}to every body, and by that means acquired the public esteem. He had many followers. At length, in 1630, the Dominicans and Franciscans took the field, though but as gleaners of the harvest after the Jesuits; and now it was that contentions broke out." This is not the place to enter particularly into the charges brought against the order; all I here mean to show is, with what want of candour the Jesuits are reviled; and I think, after what has been stated, it cannot be doubted, that the chief object of the writer of the pamphlet is to excite a ferment against the catholic claims, nor that his mode of conducting his proposed inquiry is that of a violent partizan, and not that of a genuine philosopher in search of truth. Indeed, he almost assures us of it himself at the conclusion of his preface, where he says: "It may, perhaps, appear from the inquiry (that is, the attack), that the crimes of the order are fundamental, and not accidental." In omitting, therefore, to cite documents, which show that they are not fundamental, does he not admit, {22}does he not plainly say, I have a point to gain, in which candour has no part; and, quocumque modo, it must be gained? Such is the case, and I must allow him great perseverance in collecting titles of volumes long since forgotten; but to the lovers of truth, to the nation at large, and to the parliament in particular, or at least as far as my unpractised voice can be heard, I exclaim, hunc cavete, et similes ei.

CHAPTER II.

Having seen how little credit is due to the spirit of the pamphlet before us, let us inquire what credit is due to the authorities produced against the Jesuits, and take a view of those in favour of them; and afterwards briefly notice some of the crimes imputed to them.

In stating the results of my inquiry respecting the authorities, it may save some trouble to begin with those on which Robertson founded his account of the order. I am persuaded that, had he written at the present era, his {24}authorities would have been sought in very different sources, and his whole account of the order of Jesus would have been very different to what it is. Far from impeaching that elegant writer with wilful misrepresentations, or want of caution in selecting those authorities, I readily give him credit for seeking the best he could obtain when he wrote; and the more, from his taking some pains, in a note^[9], to inform his readers, that he believes his two principal authorities, Monclar and Chalotais, to be respectable magistrates and elegant writers. But I maintain, that, if he had seen them in the point of view in which they have since appeared, as leaders on of the jacobinical philosophy, and of the French revolution, it is not likely that he would have honoured their fabrications with the weight of historical testimony: that their Comptes Rendus were fabrications we shall presently see. Let us first view the list; viz. Monclar, Chalotais, D'Alembert, Histoire des Jesuites, the French Encyclopedie, Charlevoix, Juan, and {25}Ulloa. As the three last names are authorities in favour of the Jesuits, I shall not notice them at present. D'Alembert and the Encyclopedie may go together, for he and Diderot, who wrote the article Jesuite in that work, were the chief directors of it. To men, who have recovered from the stun of jacobinism, it is hardly necessary to say, that the destruction of the Jesuits was of the first importance to the success of D'Alembert and Diderot's philosophical reform of human nature. The article written by the latter was completely refuted by a French Jesuit named Courtois, but only the writers against the order were read or cited. When the Jesuits first appeared in France, the parliament hated them as friends of the pope; the university as rival teachers. These two bodies combined to exterminate them. The university was perpetually bringing actions against them before the parliaments, but they found protection from the throne and the ministry. The university was exasperated at the desertion of their scholars, who flocked to the Jesuit schools, and at {26}the loss of their emoluments called landi, paid by students to the professors: the Jesuits taught gratuitously, and the high reputation of the celebrated Maldonado enraged the doctors beyond measure. The parliaments and the doctors were the chief fomenters of the league; and they were seconded by all the religious orders, the Jesuits excepted. The parliament, headed by Harlay, made flaming harangues and arrets: the doctors of the university and friars exhibited fanatical processions and sermons; they pronounced Henry III and Henry IV excommunicated tyrants; they canonized Jacques Clement; they rewarded his mother and family; they openly preached regicide. Their rage equalled that of the modern jacobins. They all, of course, detested the Jesuits, who, we may believe, were also obnoxious to the Hugonot party. When the league was expiring, by the conversion of Henry IV, the parliaments and university, constrained to abjure it, were nevertheless determined upon effecting the banishment of the Jesuits before {27}the king could enter on his government. The doctors renewed their suits, and employed as advocates Arnaud, Pasquier, and Dollé, who went into the courts with certainty of success. Completely successful they would have been, but for the wisdom of the minister, the duke de Sully, who, though a leader of the Hugonots, and consequently not biassed in favour of the Jesuits, indeed evidently their enemy, was too nobly minded to give an advantage to their assailants, which his master would not have done. He stopped the proceedings, by interposing the authority of the absent king, "which," said he, "is not to be compromised pour une pique de pretres et de theologiens^[10]." The prosecutors and the judges, disconcerted for the time, resolved to lose no opportunity to effect their object, and they soon found one in the crime of Chatel, in which they triumphed without a shadow of proof. Not a Jesuit was ever proved to have entered into the league: no writer accuses them of it, the advocates {28}just mentioned excepted; and their invectives, amassed in Les Extraits des Assertions, are the sole foundation of all that is said by Monclar, Chalotais, and the other authors of the Comptes Rendus.

It was necessary to enter into this detail to enable the reader to trace the foul sources of the chief authorities on which Robertson relied: but what shall we think of them, in spite of that historian's compliment to the elegance of their pens, when we hear, that these procureurs were but the nominal authors of their respective Comptes Rendus, the mean instruments of the ingenious atheists, who were preparing France for the age of reason, the liberty of jacobinism, and the murders of philosophy? That presented by Chalotais was written by D'Alembert himself; that of Riquet, procureur general of the parliament of Thoulouse, was composed by Comtezat, a notoriously debauched priest; that of Monclar, of Aix, was sent to him from Paris, with a promise of being the next chancellor of France, if he would adopt it, and {29}engage his parliament in the cause. The venerable president of that parliament, D'Eguilles, refusing to concur in the measure, was, through his means, banished, and his adherents with him, by a lettre de cachet. Monclar died repentant, and retracted all that he had said in presence of the bishop of Apt, who made a minute of the fact. As for Chalotais; would the historian have cited him had he seen the following character of that lawyer, drawn by a pen not inferior to his own, distinguished by various works of genius, and which was employed on one of the most interesting portions of English history, when his sovereign, having occasion for his talents in a trying crisis of his affairs, called him to his councils?^[11] "The procureur general of Bretagne, La Chalotais, eager to possess popularity, in order that he might arrive at power, {30}enthusiastic in his friendships, violent in his hatred, both of which were to him concerns of interest rather than of sentiment; blending with these private principles the formidable powers of his public ministry, being the oracle of a parliament, which, consisting of the first nobility of the country, always acted in concert with, and never in opposition to the States; this man had it in his power to arm his ambition or his vengeance with the sword of justice; he could give a legal sanction to tumult, and make trifles appear of serious importance; he could convert the most vapid declamation into the gravest denunciation, and, in a word, could assist the party, that he chose to espouse, with the whole artillery of decrees and arrets, which may be regarded as the ultima ratio of the parliament, on the same principle, that cannon are the ultima ratio of kings. The instant that such a man took part in the dispute, it might well be expected, that the whole province would be immediately thrown into universal confusion. In the year 1764, the duke D'Aiguillon, {31}commandant of Bretagne, a peer of France, grand nephew of cardinal Richelieu, nephew of the then minister, lastly a friend of the Jesuits, and in great favour with the dauphin, was denounced in the parliament of Bretagne, by the procureur general on his arrival in Paris. This man, who was the violent enemy of that society, was also the devoted agent of the king's mistress, and of the prime minister, who were leagued together to bring about the destruction of the Order."

So much for the reliance to be placed on La Chalotais. There remains another authority of Robertson's to be noticed, viz. "The History of the Jesuits." He does not mention the name of the author of it, but no doubt it was Coudrette's, as he would otherwise have felt it incumbent upon him to make some distinction. This man was a decided partizan of the French parliaments, and well known to be an inveterate enemy of the Jesuits. As his character is well drawn in the following {32}Letters^[12], I shall say nothing more of him here, than that his work evidently appears unworthy of being referred to as an authority.

From what has been already said, and from the neglect shown by Robertson to the multitude of other writers adopted as authorities in the pamphlet before me, it is but too evident that there long existed a conspiracy against a society, whose principles and energy awed infidelity and rebellion, and whose superior talents excited jealousy and hatred. Let us, however, see what kind of men they are to whom the new accuser of the society refers us for proofs of their being such demons as he has represented them. We will afterwards take a view of those, who think and write differently, and we shall be able to determine on which side authority lies.

I will not pretend to go numerically through the catalogue presented in the pamphlet. {33}Publications infinitely multiplied deluged Europe for the purpose of overwhelming the Jesuits; an infinity of references, therefore, if not of authorities, remains at the service of their enemies, and it would be useless and tiresome, if not impossible, to wade through them. I shall principally notice those on which the conspirator before me places his bitterest reliance, such as are most inveterate, most profuse and blackening in their accusations; touching slightly, however, or not at all, on those sufficiently refuted in the succeeding Letters. To refute all that was printed against the devoted society of Jesus would require a complete history of the destruction of the Order^[13], but within the limits of this brief exposition it is not possible to go very deep into the scrutiny of the malice, and of the means resorted to for the purpose of effecting it. To remove some of the thick, poisonous weeds, which mantle the surface of the subject, so as to show the body clear {34}beneath, is the extent of my present undertaking; and, if I appear concise, one consideration is in my favour, namely, that imputations advanced by a thousand different writers are not multiplied but repeated, and that reverberations of falsehood are still falsehood. We have already seen, that even the powers and ingenuousness of a Robertson have been unable to extract from them the voice of truth.

France has produced the greatest number of writers against the society. The speeches and publications of those in the times of the league, as I have said, furnished the original matter to the authors of the Comptes Rendus; the theme of regicide, the tales of the Jesuits Varade, Gueret, Guignard, the whole guilt of the league, &c., to which more recent matter, particularly lax doctrines of morality, has been added. This is all collected in the Extraits des Assertions, a work evidently replete with studied fabrications, as is shown by Beaumont, archbishop of Paris, Montesquiou, bishop of Sarlat, and in the {35}Reponse aux Assertions. I believe, that this Reponse and the Apologie de l'Institut are the only works written in defence of the society, which the Jesuits publicly avowed. These are unanswerable, and should be referred to by historians.

The characters of Prynne and De Thou are drawn in the following Letters^[14]. De Thou was a parliamentarian. Of Prynne I shall farther observe, that, besides his notoriety as a factious agent, lord Clarendon informs us, that he had been looked upon as a man of reproachful character previous to the infamous severities of the star chamber, which was the means of his obtaining consideration, for those of his profession, and others, thought, that persons, in his situation of life, should not be treated so ignominiously^[15]. His character may be viewed in Hume's History^[16]; and here let me observe, that {36}it was not only the catholics he attacked, but the manners of the times and the church; for which he was punished. Prynne was a thorough-paced puritan: through him and others of the same stamp the existing house of commons were glad to debase the government, and they absolutely reversed the sentence, which had been passed on him and other libellers. "The more ignoble these men were," says Hume, "the more sensible was the insult upon royal authority^[17]." What writer, valuing his own respectability, would cite such a creature as this? One of a sect, who, the writer of the pamphlet himself tells us, were united with the Jesuits, to whom their pulpits were open, for the purpose of overawing the parliament, and compelling it to destroy the king. This too is cited from Prynne, to whom he refers for much valuable evidence.

The pamphlet says, "see Rapin." The name has something less barbarous in the sound than {37}most of the others cited by the writer. Let us see Rapin. We find, in the pages of this historian, the names of Jesuit and catholic indiscriminately used, as accused of plots, suffering the rack, and confuting the accusations brought against them by the most persuasive simplicity of their protestations of innocence, and the intrepidity of their deaths. The pretended plots, in the days of Elizabeth and of the Stuarts, cited by a writer in 1815, against the toleration of the catholics^[18]! Well, but see the state trials, the actio in proditores, drawn up by our own judges, &c.^[19] "Nothing," says {38}Hume, "can be a stronger proof of the fury of the times, than that lord Russel, notwithstanding {39}the virtue and humanity of his character, seconded the house of commons in the barbarous scruple of the sheriffs" on the power of the king to remit the hanging and quartering of {40}lord Stafford, that innocent victim to his pure attachment to God. Afterwards, when lord Russel was himself condemned, the king, in remitting the same part of the sentence for treason, said, "he shall find, that I am possessed of that prerogative, which, in the case of lord Stafford, he thought proper to deny me."

I cannot here refrain from contrasting the intelligence, the spirit, and the wisdom of that great and distinguished statesman, Charles James Fox, with the tame and adoptive, though virulent, disposition of a writer, who, in another part of his pamphlet, has dared to warn every man from speaking in favour of the catholic priests of Ireland, lest he should be provoked to overwhelm the whole body with damning proofs—proofs charitably kept in petto, by this insinuator of more than he chooses to say. Speaking of one of the imaginary popish plots, Mr. Fox expresses himself thus: "Wherefore, if this question were to be decided upon the ground of authority, the reality of the plot {41}would be admitted; but there are cases, where reason speaks so plainly, as to make all argument drawn from authority of no avail, and this is surely one of them." And, a few pages after, we have the following striking passage: "Even after the dissolution of his last parliament, when he had so far subdued his enemies as to be no longer under any apprehensions from them, the king did not think it worth while to save the life of Plunket, the popish archbishop of Armagh, of whose innocence no doubt could be entertained. But this is not to be wondered at, since, in all transactions relative to the popish plot, minds, of a very different cast from Charles's, became, as by some fatality, divested of all their wonted sentiments of justice and humanity. Who can read, without horror, the account of that savage murmur of applause, which broke out upon one of the villains at the bar swearing positively to Stafford's having proposed the murder of the king? And how is this horror deepened when we reflect, that in that odious cry were, probably, {42}mingled the voices of men to whose memory every lover of the English constitution is bound to pay the tribute of gratitude and respect! Even after condemnation, lord Russel himself, whose character is wholly (this instance excepted) free from the stain of rancour or cruelty, stickled for the severer mode of executing the sentence, in a manner which his fear for the king's establishing a precedent of pardoning in cases of impeachment (for this, no doubt, was his motive) cannot satisfactorily excuse^[20]." Now what does the writer of the pamphlet before me say? "It is fashionable, with many reasoners, to treat all history as a fable, and to set up for themselves in matters of policy, in defiance of the testimony of antiquity. These persons would assign the same office to the records of past ages, as they would to the stern lights of a vessel, which serve only to throw a light over the path which has been passed, and not over that which lies before us. I trust, however, that there are yet many among us who {43}have not been so taught." It is, indeed, but too fashionable to put up fantastic reasoning against authority, and particularly against sacred authority; but reason, which knows to distinguish the nature of authority; reason, which is bold in the affairs of men, and humble in its permitted intercourse with God; reason, as Fox and Hume, and all historians worthy the title, convince us, steps not out of its province when it interposes to rectify misleading records or historical assertions; and in no case is it more eminently required than in the history of the order of Jesus, which passion, interest, and ability have united to disfigure. What is meant by the allusion to stern lights I am at a loss to conjecture. I am not much disposed, in a work of this kind, to go into verbal or rhetorical criticism; but when a man writes with such pompous and despotic decision as this author does, one has a right to expect of him, when he amuses himself with figurative language, a clear notion of what he aims at. When, therefore, he insinuates that such reasoners as Hume {44}and Fox are reprehensible for serving records of past ages like stern lights of a vessel, instead of like modern moons to carriages (for moons evidently ran in the writer's head), we are puzzled between what he says and what he means. From his own words we are bound to take it for granted that he means to condemn reasoning, and to approve of a pertinacious adherence to records, however inconsistent and contradictory; whereas, by his intended simile, he blames the reasoners for making use of records; for, if stern lights must serve as a simile, records are certainly more analogous to them than to carriage moons, which are concurrent aids, that show the driver nothing but the way before him, and are not of the least use to those travellers who are coming after on the same road; stern lights, on the contrary, are intimations at sea, from those who go before to those who follow, of the track to be pursued. The truth, I believe, is, that the author does not know the use of stern lights, and imagines that mariners illuminate aft to amuse fishes in {45}the wakes of their ships. Records, no doubt, are moral, as ship lanthorns are physical lights to guide; but treachery or ignorance, in either, may mislead, in which case the seaman will consult his compass and the inquirer his reason^[21].

But to return from this digression to Rapin. We learn from him, that Elizabeth herself, {47}whom no one will charge with over-tenderness, reprobated the cruelties practised upon the catholics. "Meanwhile," says he, "the queen sent for the judges of the realm, and sharply reproved them for having been too severe in the tortures they had made these men suffer^[22]." We have only to reflect on this passage of {48}Rapin, to appreciate the evidence furnished by the state trials of those days, the actio in proditores, and the reporters of "Criminels de Lege Majesté," so often cited by the enemies of the Jesuits. It was not only in catholic countries, we see, that the rack and other modes of torture were made the tests of truth; but they have been so long abhorred by Englishmen, that I fondly believed that there was not one among us who would allow himself to cite the efficacy of them as a proof in any argument. Their inefficacy, indeed, may justly be cited in testimony; for what they extort is in all probability false, what they fail to extort is in all probability true. If this reasoning be sound, how many blameless, how many virtuous men has the hand of party in this country consigned to cruel deaths^[23]! In addition to what Rapin {49}states of Elizabeth, it is not irrelevant to add here what Camden reports of her on the same subject: he tells us expressly, that she thought most of the priests were innocent, or, which is the same thing, that she did not believe them guilty. His words are, Plerosque tamen ex misellis his sacerdotibus exitii in patriam conflandi conscios fuisse non credidit^[24].

Of the fairness of their trials in still later times, those of Charles II, we have specimens in Hume's History. Why was not Hume quoted by the writer of the pamphlet? We find more of Jesuits in his pages than in Rapin's, and something against them too; but Hume, like Robertson, was guided by principle {50}on this subject; that is, he stated the character of the order from the pictures which he had received of it; but, at the same time, he exposed the injustice of the trials in which the Jesuits were involved, and the invalidity of the evidence produced against them. The whole of his sixty-seventh chapter is, in fact, however unintended, a memorial in favour of the Jesuits, and a philippic on their enemies. As these pages may fall into the hands of some persons who may not have the opportunity or the leisure to read this portion of his history, I shall make the following extract, as a testimony of the horrid injustice practised in former times; and I am very much mistaken if any man of feeling and sound intellect will read it without indignation against the Oateses and Bedloes of the present day.—"But even during the recess of parliament there was no interruption to the prosecution of the catholics accused: the king found himself obliged to give way to this popular fury. Whitebread, provincial of the Jesuits, Fenwic, {51}Gavan, Turner, and Harcourt, all of them of the same order, were first brought to their trial. Besides Oates and Bedloe, Dugdale, a new witness, appeared against the prisoners. This man had been steward to lord Aston, and, though poor, possessed a character somewhat more reputable than the other two; but his account of the intended massacres and assassinations was equally monstrous and incredible. He even asserted, that two hundred thousand papists in England were ready to take up arms. The prisoners proved, by sixteen witnesses from St. Omers, students, and most of them young men of family, that Oates was in that seminary at the time when he swore that he was in London: but, as they were catholics, and disciples of the Jesuits, their testimony, both with the judges and jury, was totally disregarded. Even the reception, which they met with in court, was full of outrage and mockery. One of them saying, that Oates always continued at St. Omers, if he could believe his senses; 'you {52}papists,' said the chief justice, 'are taught not to believe your senses.' It must be confessed, that Oates, in opposition to the students of St. Omers, found means to bring evidence of his having been at that time in London: but this evidence, though it had, at that time, the appearance of some solidity, was afterwards discovered, when Oates himself was tried for perjury, to be altogether deceitful. In order farther to discredit that witness, the Jesuits proved, by undoubted testimony, that he had perjured himself in father Ireland's trial, whom they showed to have been in Staffordshire at the very time when Oates swore that he was committing treason in London. But all these pleas availed them nothing against the general prejudices. They received sentence of death; and were executed, persisting to their last breath, in the most solemn, earnest, and deliberate, though disregarded, protestations of their innocence^[25]."

I must not forget, that I am still producing the authorities quoted against the Jesuits. Having been led by these into adducing the favourable testimony of Hume, I mean not to dissemble his objections to the order: these are, their zeal for proselytism, and their cultivation of learning for the nourishment of superstition. The zeal for proselytism, in itself, can be no crime; and, if unconnected with the treasons, persecutions, and vices, so abundantly charged upon the catholics, it is a natural sentiment of the mind. It is indeed that propensity, which, so violently condemned in catholics, has been the chief propagator of every sect since the reformation to the present moment, and not without symptoms of rebellion, and even of king-killing. Some instances, to show this, will not be uninteresting here. The heads of the reformers, in Scotland, as we are informed by Hume, being desirous to propagate their principles, entered privately into a bond, or association, and called themselves the congregation of {54}the Lord, in contradistinction to the established church, which they denominated the congregation of Satan. The tenour of the bond was as follows:—"We, perceiving how Satan, in his members, the antichrist of our time, does cruelly rage, seeking to overthrow and to destroy the gospel of Christ and his congregation, ought, according to our bounden duty, to strive, in our master's cause, even unto the death, being certain of the victory in him. We do therefore promise, before the majesty of God and his congregation, that we, by his grace, shall, with all diligence, continually apply our whole power, substance, and our very lives, to maintain, set forward, and establish, the most blessed word of God and his congregation; and shall labour, by all possible means, to have faithful ministers, truly and purely to minister Christ's gospel and sacraments to the people: we shall maintain them, nourish them, and defend them, the whole congregation of Christ, and every member thereof, by our whole power, and at the hazard of our {55}lives, against Satan, and all wicked power, who may intend tyranny and trouble against the said congregation: unto which holy word and congregation we do join ourselves; and we forsake and renounce the congregation of Satan, with all the superstitions, abomination, and idolatry thereof; and moreover shall declare ourselves manifestly enemies thereto, by this faithful promise before God, testified to this congregation by our subscriptions.—At Edinburgh, the third of December, 1557."—Hume adds; "Had the subscribers of this zealous league been content only to demand a toleration of the new opinions, however incompatible their pretensions might have been with the policy of the church of Rome, they would have had the praise of opposing tyrannical laws enacted to support an establishment prejudicial to civil society: but, it is plain, that they carried their views much farther; and their practice immediately discovered the spirit by which they were actuated. Supported by the authority, {56}which they thought belonged to them as the congregation of the Lord, they ordained, that prayers in the vulgar tongue should be used in all the parish churches of the kingdom; and, that preaching and the interpretation of the scriptures should be practised in private houses, till God should move the prince to grant public preaching by faithful and true ministers. Such bonds of association are always the forerunners of rebellion; and this violent invasion of the established religion was the actual commencement of it^[26]."

Whatever the catholic zeal may have produced, nothing can exceed the insolence and seditious spirit of the reformers. Knox's usual appellation of the queen of Scotland, the unfortunate Mary, was Jezebel. "The political principles of that man, which he communicated {57}to his brethren, were as full of sedition as his theological were of rage and bigotry^[27]." Was there no treason, was there no regicide doctrine in the following brutal speech, which he addressed to her? "Samuel feared not to slay Agag, the fat and delicate king of Amalek, whom king Saul had saved: neither spared Elias Jezebel's false prophets, and Baal's priests. Phineas was no magistrate, yet feared he not to strike Cozbi and Zimri. And so, madam, your grace may see, that others than chief magistrates may lawfully inflict punishment on such crimes as are condemned by the law of God^[27]."

Is it not the zeal for proselytism, that daily thins the established church of England, and increases the congregations of the innumerable denominations of sectaries, which are tolerated in this country, and of which each, if it could, would make its own universal? Even in private and temperate characters, a conformity of {58}soul is one of the bases of friendship. The desire of impressing our sentiments and opinions upon the minds of those we love is the source of intercourse; we should be dumb without it. It is not wonderful, that this spring of the social system should extend to the principles of religion; and to say, that a Christian is zealous to make a Pagan a Christian is to bestow the highest praise upon him. If the reformed missionaries deserve this praise, it cannot be refused to the Jesuits. Nothing, in fact, can be more laudable than such a zeal, and all that can be objected to it is foreign to its real nature. The treasons and crimes, which have been imputed to the Jesuits, Hume himself has shown were falsely charged to them. Vice is not inherent in any profession of faith; it is inherent in the corrupted nature of man. Compare a Knox with a Bordaloue, a Prynne with a Beauregard or a Bossuet, and we shall be blind if we do not perceive the difference between the zeal which actuates the Christian, and that which leads to treason and to crime. {59}

Hume's other objection to the Jesuits was, "their cultivation of learning for the nourishment of superstition." Now we very well know how far his idea of superstition extended, and that it did not fall short of the whole system of revealed religion. It is not necessary to dwell long upon this objection. The superstition which is injurious to mankind, must be the offspring of ignorance; and, no one denies, that ignorance and superstition were very prevalent in the dark ages of the world, and even long after the revival of letters; no one denies, that weak and illiterate minds, of whatever persuasion, are yet prone to it. What is meant by the superstition nourished by learning can only be the impression of mysteries, which the understanding, however puzzled, finds sufficient grounds to entertain, and on which to build hopes of an immaterial and immortal connexion with the Supreme Being. This kind of superstition, or rather this religious impression, has ever been cherished by the noblest minds, and forms a prominent part of the character of learned {60}men of all persuasions. Attached, myself, to the church of England, it is, nevertheless, clear to me, that the Reformation has generated the most absurd superstitions; and I cannot conceive that there is a man, of unbiassed mind and good sense, who would not rather embrace all that has been retrenched from the catholic creed, than adopt the spurious abominations and blasphemies which, every where, under the screen of toleration, disgrace the world. But I am not here entering into a defence of the Roman church, or into a derision of the vagaries which have sprung from imaginary rationality, or misapplied enthusiasm; my only purpose was to speak of Hume's authority; and I shall quit the subject of superstition to turn to that of casuistry, to which he also alludes.

And here it is that the deadliest blow is aimed against the Jesuits. If their system of morality makes virtues of "prevarication, perjury, and every crime, when it serves ghostly purposes," the reproach is fatal. On this head, the writer {61}of the pamphlet gives us a string of casuists, to confound the order at once. Desirous either of clearing away or substantiating this charge, and recollecting the remark of Voltaire, which I have already cited, that "the extravagant notions of a few Spanish and Flemish Jesuits were artfully ascribed to the whole society," I inquired more particularly into the character and objects of the casuists of the order; and, the more I reflected, the more I was convinced of the malignity of the adversaries of the society, on whom the charge might well be turned, changing Hume's derisive epithet of ghostly into two other qualifying words, viz. rebellious and revolutionary; for who will deny that prevarication, perjury, and every crime, have been resorted to, and justified for rebellious and revolutionary purposes?

In such a number of casuistical writers, it may be imagined, that some have erred. The Jesuits never wished to defend them. It may be presumed, that the number of errors was not great, {62}since their enemies found it necessary to commit so many falsifications to make up the volume of Assertions. In many instances, the author of that book attributes to the casuist, opinions which he only cites to refute. In moral theology the Jesuits had two rules, from which few of them ever deviated; one was, to follow the opinions which were most common; the other, never to defend an opinion when prohibited or condemned by the holy see. Some of their casuists taught doctrines, which, in their time, were the most usual in schools, but which were afterwards condemned or prohibited at Rome. Their enemies imputed these doctrines to them as crimes. The Dominican and Franciscan casuists might have been equally charged; but, as Voltaire observed, it would not have answered the purpose.

The chief casuists, collected to answer the purpose in the new conspiracy against the Jesuits, are the following: Lamy, Moya, Bauny, Berruyer, Casnedi, and Benzi. Since, next to the Monita Secreta, that infamous forgery so {63}completely exposed in the subsequent Letters, the writer of the pamphlet relies on the immoral doctrines to be found in the writings of these priests, let us see on what foundation they stand. I shall first observe, that the Apology for the Casuists, said to be published by the Jesuits, so far from being avowed as a work of their own, was disavowed by the superiors of the order, and condemned by the pope and many prelates. It was written by Pere Pirot, who seemed, in a manner, determined to justify Pascal's Satires, by defending certain opinions, in spite of their having been condemned, as D'Avrigny informs us, in his Memoires Chronologiques et Dogmatiques pour servir à l'Histoire Ecclesiastique depuis 1600 jusqu'en 1716, &c.^[28] The author laments the hard fate of religious societies, of which he observes, que toute faute personelle dans le jugement du public devient une faute generale, et les enfans portent l'iniquité de leurs peres jusqu'à la troisieme et la quatrieme generation.

The Course of Theology, by Lamy, is classed with the Apology, as justifying murder, &c. This author was a Neapolitan, whose name was Amici, and the work, from which the charge in question is extracted, consists of nine volumes folio! The proposition attributed to him, to blacken him as a Jesuit, was not his, nor ever adopted by him. It had been taught, long before, by the celebrated casuist Navarre, and others totally unconnected with the Jesuits. Amici mentions it, and alleges the reasons which had been given in support of it, but adds, nolumus a nobis (hæc) ita sint dicta ut communi sententiæ adversentur, sed tantum disputandi gratia proposita. The proposition was omitted altogether in the second edition of his work, and, being formally condemned by Alexander VII, in 1665, was never after defended by any catholic divine.

Moya seems to have been a very virtuous man, though, perhaps, rather indiscreet in his zeal for the credit of his society. The facts are {65}these: a book had been published by one Gregory Esclapey, reproaching the Jesuits with teaching many erroneous doctrines. To this work Moya published an answer, under the name of Guimenius, in which he professedly abstains from all inquiry into the merits of the doctrines; but, being imputed to the Jesuits by their adversary, he undertakes to show, that they were not responsible for them, as they did not originate with them, having been taught by the older divines, previous to the existence of the order. The doctrines were condemned at Rome in 1666, and Moya, in the third edition of his work, proves the justice of the condemnation, by entering into a refutation of them.

Bauny lived at the same time. He was the intimate friend and confidant of the famous cardinal de la Rochefoucault, archbishop of Sens, and reformer of the Benedictines. He was afterwards a zealous missionary in Bretagne, under the bishop of St. Pol de Leon. He died of his missionary labours. If he treated other {66}with lenity, it is certain he did not spare himself. His "Somme des Pechés" was written, as he informs us, by the positive order of a bishop, probably the bishop of St. Pol, and it was published by order of the bishop, unaccompanied by the sanction or approbation of any Jesuit; nor was it used in their schools, consequently, its doctrines are nowise attributable to the society. It contains several relaxed propositions, deservedly censured by the French clergy in 1642.

Berruyer is stated by the pamphlet-writer to have been convicted of blasphemy, and condemned by Benedict XIII and Clement XIII. This is not true; he never was convicted of blasphemy. He was not a casuist. His "Histoire da Peuple de Dieu" was censured and condemned by Benedict XIV and Clement XIII. He was a man of much erudition, and master of an agreeable and graceful style, but fond of extraordinary opinions. The chief faults imputed to him are, that he {67}disparages the simplicity and majesty of the inspired books, by rhetorical tropes and figures, and modern phraseology; and that he discourses on the humanity of the Redeemer in a manner that seems to favour the ancient heresy of the Nestorians. The French Jesuits disavowed the work, and submitted unanimously to the condemnation of it. It is rather surprising, that this author should have been cited among the casuists by the writer of the pamphlet, who, if he had read the imputed blasphemy, would have found in it something of protestant principles, pushed even beyond the reform adopted by our church, refusing the Virgin Mary the title to her being mother of our Saviour in his divine nature. But what does this signify? It is enough to have heard that the book was condemned by a pope, no matter which; it could not have been condemned without being blasphemous; and who could suspect, that a Jesuit had any correspondent sentiment with protestants? {68}

Casnedi was of a noble and ancient Milanese family; a man of great learning, zeal, and piety. He maintained, that the moral merit or demerit of an action depended upon the belief and intention of the agent. A very simple and incontrovertible proposition; but, being expressed in ardent terms, not unlike those used by the fanatical orators of the present day, it makes a flaming show among the articles of impeachment now instituted against the whole society of Jesus.

Benzi is represented in several French and Italian libels in the foul colours copied by the writer of the pamphlet. He was a respectable and much injured man. He was universally revered in Venice, where he was a distinguished director and preacher. Far from teaching the horrors imputed to him, he merely gave an opinion, in writing, on being consulted, whether certain trespasses were to be considered as cases reserved or not reserved. It was merely a questio juris, a technical opinion, and not a {69}decision on the subject matter. Malice and calumny did the rest.

This, I believe, is the triumphant list of casuists drawn up, rank and file, to confront and confound the whole society to which they are said to have belonged. The philosopher Bayle tells us, that the writers in those days "had only to publish boldly whatever they chose against the Jesuits, they might be certain of convincing an infinite number of people. The prejudice against them had become so general, that, let them bring forward what proofs they might, it was not possible for them to undeceive the world." And he adds; "But I cannot imagine how the rules of morality suffer such an abuse of public prejudice^[29]." Had he lived till now, he would have seen, that there are heads of the nineteenth century which can imagine it very virtuous to excite, foment, and augment prejudice on the same subject, in order {70}to gratify the vanity of writing, or the unfounded spleen of a less relenting philosophy than his own.

The great sources of such historical proofs as have been amassed by the new conspiracy against the Jesuits being proved to be impure and unworthy of credit, it becomes as unnecessary as it is disgusting to wade through the mud and filth of the mass of obscure pamphlets referred to by the writer of the pamphlet, such as "Prynne's hidden Works of Darkness," and "Rome's Masterpiece," "Remarks of a Portugueze," "A true and certain Relation of sundry Machinations and Plots of the Jesuits," "The Anatomy of Popish Tyranny," "Recit des desseins les plus Secrets des Jesuites," "Jesuites Marchands," "Recueil des Procès contre les Jesuites," "Idée generale des Vices," &c. &c. There is, however, one more of the catalogue, which I will notice, to prove still farther the dishonesty of the means taken by the new conspirators to blacken the Jesuits; it is {71}"Le Franc Discours, or the Memorial presented to Henry IV against them." Did it not become an inquirer into the truth of the accusations, to state the answer of Henry IV to the accusers of the Jesuits? An answer which, in itself alone, is enough to vindicate the society, and unveil the immense and complicated engine so long since put in motion for its destruction; and so irresistibly and successfully employed, in the course of time, by the framers of it. Pius VII is not the first, who has recalled the Jesuits; the great and good Henry IV recalled them, after they had been banished from his kingdom by the machinations of their enemies. Then it was, that he was memorialed; that remonstrance upon remonstrance was laid before him: but Henry was not easily imposed upon by passionate asseverations, nor made the dupe of envious persecutions. On the parliament delaying to give effect to his edict for the re-establishment of the Jesuits, he informed them, that he was determined to be obeyed; but he admitted a deputation of some of their members, with {72}their first president, Harlay, at their head, who went to the palace to state anew their remonstrances. Dupleix, a French historian, says, that Harlay made a long harangue to the king, which "was rather an invective, filled with all the abuse and outrage in the pleadings of Pasquier and Arnaud; in the Catechism of Pasquier, and in the work entitled Franc Avis, against the society, than the speech of a statesman^[30]." Henry's reply lies at this moment before me on the table, and, I think, I should be wanting to the cause of truth and justice, if I neglected to insert it here. It is rather long for a quotation, but it cannot be tedious, and I am certain, that every unprejudiced reader will be gratified with the perusal of it.

With such a speech in existence, is it not a disgrace to any man to cite against the society the remonstrance that gave occasion to it? I have done, then, with this writer's impure and disgraceful authorities; and I should here proceed immediately to the respectable, the noble, the brilliant list of authorities in favour of the Jesuits, but that I feel it proper previously to notice another attack upon them, from a very unexpected quarter, from one whom we are almost compelled to consider as an unbiassed {82}assailant, since (besides being a gentleman and a member of the legislature) he does, in the very act of aiming the blow which he gives, profess the highest admiration, respect, and regard for them. "I am ready to admit," says sir John Hippisley, "the merit of that body of catholics, as far as they are exercised in the secular walk of philosophical and classical instruction; their schools and seminaries have been the most celebrated," &c. Again; "It pains me to speak, in these terms, of a community, comprehending many highly respected ecclesiastics, and, in the bosom of which, many of my valuable friends have received their education," &c. But sir John's "sense of duty overcomes his individual partialities^[33]."

In consistency with these professions, sir John seems desirous of confining his objections to some particulars; but he was unable to conceal how willing he is to lay his axe to the tree, root {83}and branch; for he inserts a note to his speech, in which, not satisfied with protestant objections, he luxuriates in the citation of the "burning of more than fifty publications of Jesuit authors by the common hangman;" in the naming of the authors, whose books were burned; and in recording the very terms of the sentence: seront lacerés et brulés, dans la cour du palais, par l'executeur de la haute justice (the high office translated by sir John common hangman) comme seditieux, destructifs de toute principe de la morale Chretienne, enseignant une doctrine meurtrière et abominable, non-seulement contre la sureté de la vie des citoyens, mais même contre celle des personnes sacrées des souverains. To which is added, a reference to a Portuguese work, for a complete list of the books burned. So much for sir John's sorrow in speaking, in the milder terms of his harangue, on his particular objections, and for the preference he would have given to having his statement reserved for the consideration of a select committee. The reader, long before he arrives at this {84}preference of secret publicity, will have learned, from good authority, how to appreciate both the sentence and the judges that pronounced it; which sir John, by his recording it, appears not to have been able to do, in spite of the number of his friends, to whom he might have applied for information of the spirit that inflamed the parliament of Paris. But let us see the particular objections made by Sir John Hippisley. Sir John states, that the general of the order being a Russian, the acknowledgment of him by Jesuits in other states is an instance of dependence upon foreign jurisdiction. From this objection, it is to be presumed, that sir John credits the complete despotism, and other horrors, which have been attributed to the character of the general, as well as the prostitution of reason and virtue in all the members of the order, in consequence of the vow of obedience. And he evidently apprehends, that, if we go to war with Russia, the constitution of Great Britain will be endangered by the plots of Jesuits in this country! "We are," says he, "at this hour, {85}on terms of amity with Russia; within how short a period was it otherwise?" In neither country is catholicism the established religion, yet sir John sees, that Jesuits may busy themselves so foully with Greeks and Lutherans, that the pope will be brought in. The objection is really absurd; but, on the despotism of the general, and the blind obedience of the companions of the order, I shall make some remarks, when I consider the institute itself; at present, I shall only repeat, that these are calumnies to which no man would be a dupe, who had ever cast his eye over the pages of that almost inspired body of religious and moral statutes. The general, as well as the members of the community, is bound by those laws. A general congregation may be assembled, without his consent, and in defiance of him, to make laws against him: and "blind obedience is a sacrifice of passion, not of reason; Jesuits are to obey blindly, only when they see clearly, that they may do so without a crime, nay, without the slightest fault." The obedience which all religious, as well as Jesuits, paid to their chief {86}superior, who generally resided at Rome, was well understood to relate merely to their professional duties. It was first made an object of jealousy, exclusively with regard to the Jesuits, at the time that the parliaments were studying every mode of making them odious; and, before that time, the native country of their general was a matter of indifference. The native country of the pope was never alleged as a motive for rejecting his authority. The obedience of the Jesuits was voluntary; and they knew, from their institute, that it never could supersede the duty which they owed to the government under which they lived. Can sir John adduce a single instance of a Jesuit's betraying the country, or the government, which protected him? The first superiors of the French Jesuits were Spaniards and Italians. The superior of the Venetian Jesuits, during the famous contest between that state and Paul V, was a Frenchman.

In friendly consideration for the instructors of his numerous valuable friends, sir John informs {87}the House of Commons, that, though the empress of Russia countenanced the re-organization of the society within her dominions, "it was in a degraded state, to suit the views of her policy;" and, in a note, he informs the world at large, that "a correspondent of great consideration observed, that the empress was well pleased with the opportunity of snapping her fingers (narguer) at the courts of Versailles and Madrid, and showing them and the world at large, that she could render the institution tractable by her superior authority and management; that is, that she could tame wild beasts, which they were forced to destroy^[34]." It is not for me to {88}divine by what means sir John, or his correspondent, obtained such possession of the secrets of Catherine's mind, as to be able to decide, in the face of the world, that her conduct, in saving the Jesuits, was guided by petty motives of private interest, and especially the secret desire de narguer, in plain English to jeer and jibe, to fleer and flout, the French and Spanish courts; but, if so, it evidently supposes some previous cause of dissatisfaction with those courts. What that cause was it is for sir John or his correspondent to state: to the generality of men, I believe, it remains a mystery. I am ignorant of any such cause, and, being in the class of ordinary observers, I ascribe the conduct of the empress to the more generous motives, which she and her two successors have avowed to the world. These are, the duty of providing for their catholic subjects suitable ministers and teachers; their knowledge {89}that the Jesuits of White Russia are such; their abhorrence of the injustice, which would strip them of their property, of their civil state and profession, and abolish their canonical existence, without any proof of crime or misdemeanour; and, finally, their royal word and faith pledged to maintain inviolably the status quo of the catholic religion and its ministers, as settled in the pacta conventa of the cession of White Russia to their dominion^[35]. These motives {90}have something in them honourable, generous, and dignified. I revere the empress, who, acting upon them, could at once read a lesson of justice to other monarchs, and rescue from destruction a remnant of the persecuted society. Instead of attributing to her the paltry spirit de narguer, I will, with sir John's permission, apply to her the praise which Cicero addressed to Cæsar, in his oration for Marcellus: "Nobilissimam familiam, jam ad paucos redactam, pene ab interitu vindicasti!" Sir John will not refuse her this compliment, when he discovers the extraordinary inaccuracy into which he has been betrayed by his informer. He asserts^[36], that Catherine "secured the tractability of these {91}restless men by the sine qua non of the residence of their general, a subject, within the state." It is true, that their general could not conveniently reside in any other state; but my information emboldens me to affirm, that no restraint whatever was laid upon the Jesuits, in the election of their generals; that they have already elected five in Russia, all of whom have been foreigners. The three first were Poles, of whom one, named by sir John, F. Carew, was of British extraction. Their late general, Gruber, was an Austrian; the present superior is a Prussian, and is actually expected at Rome.

In a detail of restrictions he mentions the superintendence of the seminaries being consigned to the ministry of public inspection, and asserts, that priests of the Greek national church are directed to attend the Jesuit colleges, to instruct the pupils of the Greek communion in religion. I am unacquainted with the weight of authority to be allowed to sir John's correspondent; but, certainly, the result of my inquiries differs {92}widely from the information communicated by him. The Jesuits have, ever since their establishment in Russia, been treated with unsuspecting liberality. The integrity of their institute has been scrupulously maintained, and the authority given to the catholic archbishop of Mohilow has ever been exactly confined within the limits prescribed by the council of Trent. By a law of the present emperor, all colleges were subjected to the control of the university of Petersburgh. The Jesuits, feeling the inconvenience of this, soon had their own chief college of Polosk erected into a university, by which they became exempted from the temporary control. They have an establishment at Petersburgh, called the "College of Nobles," into which young noblemen only are admitted as pensioners, and these are educated in the regular collegiate discipline, whatever be their religion. They attend at divine service, and at public catechisms and instructions. The majority of them are of the national religion, and, if their parents or they themselves desire it, the {93}superior of the Jesuits permits a priest of the Greek church to come to the college on Sunday, where he explains the national catechism to them in a private room. Beyond this he has nothing to do in the house. This practice may be known at court, but it was neither enjoined nor recommended by the court. This is the account I have collected of the Jesuits in Russia, and, I am persuaded, that they are not more restricted than the catholics in general, whom sir John appears to attack through the Jesuits, for in this long note (page 36), which seemed exclusively designed for the exposure of their Russian degradation, he slides unexpectedly into an exposure of "the restrictions, which attach generally upon the exercise of the Roman catholic discipline." In this I have here no part to take, the general question has passed through abler hands than mine; my subject confines me to the society of the Jesuits, and in so doing calls upon me to notice the advertisement prefixed to sir John Hippisley's Speech. In that advertisement we find it to be sir John's opinion, {94}that the bull of Pius VII, by which the order of Jesuits is restored, should not be published without the rescript of Clement XIV, by which it was suppressed, as a pendant; and, in a style of triumphant irony, he leaves it to the consideration of an author favourable to the society^[37], on comparing the pontifical acts, "whether he can advantageously take the field against the memorable rescript of Ganganelli, and enter the lists with the living writers of his own communion, who espouse that deliberate pontifical act; for," says he, "it does not appear, that the denunciation pronounced by the bull of Pius VII has extinguished the ardour of the opponents of the constitution, which he has so solemnly re-embodied. Two publications on the subject have issued from the French press, since the date of this bull, namely, Du Pape et des Jesuites, and, Les Jesuites tels qu'ils ont été dans l'Ordre Politique, Religieux, et Moral. {95}The first is ascribed to the pen of a Pere de l'Oratoire, the other announced as the work of M. S***, Ancien Magistrat. A perusal of these tracts," continues sir John, "and especially the brief of Pius VII, will lead to the discovery, whether the society have been most successfully attacked or defended by the French writers or by Mr. Plowden."

The Jesuits are more obliged to sir John for this position of the subject than, I believe, he meant they should be. I cannot judge of Mr. Plowden's success, not having seen his publication, but I think and hope to find it complete, from sir John's own statement in this advertisement. I am also unacquainted with the two overpowering French pamphlets alluded to; but their titles and authors are enough to convince me, that the new conspiracy against the Jesuits extends to France, that I am answering the pamphlets without seeing them, and that they are nothing more than the crambe repetita, the dying echoes, of the Jansenists, {96}parliamentarians, and jacobins. Can sir John have read the accounts, to be found in various authors, of the persecution of the Jesuits, and not suspect the very appellations of Father of the Oratory, and Ancient Magistrate? If he does me the honour to read this sketch, he will, I hope, know what value to set upon them. But what surprises me most is, that he does not seem to be aware, that the Jesuits had always enemies in their own communion, for, by underlining these words, he shows, that he thinks it a strong proof of guilt when Roman catholics espouse the suppression of the order. A moment's reflection will bring to his mind, that the most powerful of the ancient conspiracy against the Jesuits were, at least, professed catholics; the Arnauds, the Pasquiers, the Monclars, the Chalotais; not to mention the D'Alemberts, Diderots, Condorcets, who, indeed, though educated catholics, were professed atheists or deists. The same may be said of Vatel, and some others cited by sir John. Vatel was a fanatical deist; Dupin a notorious Jansenist; Pereira a devoted creature {97}of Pombal. Envious men, and philosophers, do not spare others because they are of the same religious communion. If this motive prevailed, much sparring and abuse would be saved among protestants as well as among catholics. But, to come to the principal point of view, in which sir John's advertisement has happily placed the cause of the Jesuits.

History shows us, that, however extensive and complete the power of the popes may have been in former remote periods, they had a very difficult part to sustain in later times, and that they were often obliged to court the catholic monarchs, and to yield, that they might not be forced^[38]. This was peculiarly the case with Clement XIV, whose philosophical name, Ganganelli, sir John significantly shoots at us through the rifle of Italics, and it was his {98}avowed policy, even before his elevation to the pontificate, that the Jesuits were to be sacrificed, in spite of their innocence, in spite of their religious and moral virtues, in spite of his own attachment and approbation, to the necessity of preserving the favour of the monarchs of Europe. "Portugal," says he, "will never give up her opinion, in which I see other kingdoms that will confirm and support her. Kings no longer live unconnected with one another, as formerly; they form friendships, and act in concert; so that, if we are unfortunate enough to offend one, we may offend all; and, instead of having one enemy to deal with, we have all Europe upon us^[39]."—"Little minds imagine, that one must be displeased with a certain religious society, if one does not support them in defiance of kings. But, besides that resisting the potentates would only multiply storms for them, one would not, through partiality to them, embroil oneself with all the catholic princes^[40]." This is pretty plain {99}language, but what follows is in more direct terms, and, I think, is a decisive proof of the motives, which influenced the writer in the suppression of the Jesuits, when the tiara was placed upon his head: "Now it is, that we must make use of that wisdom of the serpent which Jesus Christ recommends to his apostles. It is no doubt grievous, that a religious brotherhood intended for colleges, seminaries, and missions, and who have written much on the truths of religion, should be deserted at a time when incredulity has broken loose with fury against the religious orders; but the question to be decided before God is, whether it is better to contend with the sovereigns than to give up a religious society. For my part, I think, on seeing the storm that gathers howling from all quarters, and which we perceive already over our heads, that it is right for us to act ourselves without waiting, and to sacrifice what is most agreeable rather than incur the anger of the sovereigns, which we cannot too much dread. Let our holy father, {100}and his secretary of state, love the Jesuits sincerely, I subscribe with all my heart to the attachment they have for the society; but I shall always say, notwithstanding my veneration for St. Ignatius, and the esteem in which his disciples are held, that it is very dangerous, nay, very rash, to, support the Jesuits in the present circumstances^[41]." These sentiments of cardinal Ganganelli would not serve well for a pendant to the brief of Clement XIV, yet, for the sake of truth and justice, they should be always printed together, and go down side by side to posterity. Where now is "the formidable array of pontiffs," which show that Ganganelli "is not the solitary impugner," among popes, of the order of Jesuits? Ganganelli tells you, that they were tossed on a stormy sea, where they were obliged to manage their sails dexterously, that they might not sink themselves; and, in the very rescript which sir John has hung by the side of Pius VII's bull {101}in his appendix, he declares, that it blew so hard from the four quarters, France, Spain, Portugal and Sicily (see page 24), that he was under the necessity of throwing the Jesuits overboard: "Our dear sons in Jesus Christ," says he, "having made known their demands and wills in this matter."

Clement XIV vainly flattered himself, that, by making ample concessions to the importunity of the combined ministers, by persecuting the Jesuits in detail, contrary to his own conviction, he should, in the end, escape the necessity of crushing them altogether. It was the policy of Pontius Pilate. His whole reign was one series of vexatious treatment; even outrages against them. From the first day of his pontificate they were the only Christians excluded from access to the common father. His condescension only betrayed his weakness, and enhardened the ministerial conspirators. When, at length, he found it impossible to resist them, without incurring the loss of his states, "he gave sentence, {102}that it should be as they required^[42]." He resorted to the principle of the high priest, in St. John, chap. ii, verse 50, the expediency of which is so clearly announced in his Letters^[43]. But here three things sorely distressed him: the incongruity and injustice of condemning the Jesuits without a trial, which he knew the ministers would not permit; the approbation of their institute by the council of Trent; and the concurring approbation of the order by nearly twenty popes, especially the very recent constitution, or bull, of his immediate predecessor, Clement XIII, solemnly published, and received by the whole church. The applicants for the destruction of the order undertook to remove his scruples.

I am obliged to sir John for drawing my attention to Ganganelli's brief, which I might otherwise have passed over without much {103}scrutiny. He is of opinion, that it should accompany the bull of the reigning pontiff; but some connoisseurs may think, that it will show to more advantage exhibited between the just mentioned bull apostolicum of Clement XIII and that of Pius VII: it would thus have a pendant on each side, eliciting, by a double contrast, all the effects of art. The bull apostolicum formed a principal objection to the grand plan of destruction, not easy to be evaded. It was so recent, so public, so solemn, so decisive. It was a distinct and specific approbation and confirmation of the society of Jesus; it repeated the sentiments of all popes from Paul III; it was solicited by hundreds of bishops; it was formally communicated to the college of cardinals, and was applauded by them all; it was accepted by every catholic bishop; it had every character of a formal judgment of the whole catholic church. Clement XIV and his advisers dared not to contradict it by another bull; it would have been a great scandal. The cardinals could not have concurred in it. The inferior, {104}and less authoritative, mode of brief, or private letter, or rescript, in which it was not usual to consult the cardinals, was adopted. In this, the difficulty presented by the apostolicum of Clement XIII is overleaped in a short and peremptory way, by an absurd declaration of its having been extorted rather than granted, without any proof, and in defiance of the number of circumstances which demonstrate the contrary. As sir John appears to be unacquainted with this famous constitution of Clement XIII, published in the beginning of 1765, and as it is perhaps the best written official document which Rome has, for many years, sent forth, it shall be inserted in the Appendix in its original language^[44].

The more I consider Ganganelli's rescript, the more am I surprised at the pitiful attempts made to lay down something like an apology for injustice, and the more am I disgusted with its want of principle. It opens with a long narration {105}of the suppression of various small religious associations by ancient popes, but it leaves us quite in the dark as to the justice or injustice of those several suppressions. It informs us, that several complaints had been made, at several times, to several popes, of the Jesuits; but it omits to tell us, that those complaints had always been either rejected, or refuted, or disregarded, by those several popes, whose public acts attest that they were, one and all, friends and supporters of the society^[45]. The brief then recites the jus, or leading maxim, on which the whole procedure hinges, and which, in spite of {106}the Roman canon, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, solves the pope's first difficulty, or scruple, of punishing without trial: it is this; that the slow and fallible method of proceeding before courts of justice must be avoided; that reliance must be placed WHOLLY on that plenitude of power, which popes possess in so eminent a degree, as vicars of Christ upon earth, and as sovereign moderators of the Christian republic; and that regular orders, which they propose to suppress, ought not to be allowed the faculty of producing any arguments in their defence, or of clearing themselves from the heavy accusations brought against them. These are the words of the brief, as given by sir John in the translation of it in the Appendix to his Speech; in other words, the accused may be punished without being heard. This requires no comment; every British heart will suggest a just one.

Let us now see how Ganganelli gets over the difficulty arising from the approbation of the council of Trent. To the eternal disgrace of {107}this brief, then, we find the operative or suppressing clause made to depend upon a paltry sophism. Stating the demands and wishes of his dear sons, the kings and ministers, with the addition of pressing solicitations from some bishops and other persons, Clement, for a salvo to his conscience, declares (page 25), "that to choose the wisest course, in an affair of so much importance, he determined not to be precipitate, but to take due time to examine attentively, weigh carefully, and wisely debate upon it." What was done? "First of all," continues the brief, "we proposed to examine upon what grounds rested the common opinion, that the institute of the clerks of the company of Jesus had been approved and confirmed in a special manner by the council of Trent! And we found, that, in the said council, nothing more was done, with regard to the said society, than to except it from the general decree respecting other orders. The same council declared, that it meant not to make any change or innovation in the government of the clerks of the company of Jesus, that {108}they might not be hindered from being useful to God and his church, according to the intent of the pious institute approved by the holy see." If the lines in italics are not an especial approval and confirmation of the institute, then must I confess, that I know not the meaning of the words approval and confirmation. To my understanding they convey a most decided approbation and confirmation of the institute. Well, what succeeds the imprimis? What does the pontiff next examine, weigh, and debate attentively, carefully, and wisely? The reader will look in vain for the second head of wise deliberation; the actuating assertion immediately follows: "actuated by so many and important considerations," &c. &c., and impelled by fear, for that is the import of the following sentences, "WE DO SUPPRESS AND ABOLISH THE SAID COMPANY." The only possible apology, that can be made for Clement, in this rescript, is, that he acted, as lawyers term it, under duress. After his own avowal, while a cardinal, can any man doubt, that he {109}imagined that the intrigues going on in France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily, against the Jesuits, would prove fatal to the power of Rome, if the society were protected? The whole of the preamble of his rescript consists of the approbation of his predecessors, and the appeals of the intriguers of the nations around him against the Jesuits. At last, the Inquisition^[46] of Spain (see page 20), press so strongly, that Sixtus V determines to examine the matter; but he is saved the misfortune by death, and his successor, Gregory XIV, approves of the institution of the society in its utmost extent, confirms their privileges, and ordains that, under pain of excommunication, all proceedings against the society should be quashed (page 21). In short, neither in the multifarious preamble, nor in the short actuating clause, does Clement XIV once advance an opinion of his {110}own adverse to the society; but throughout lends himself to the representations of foreign cabals, to which he at last confessedly sacrifices them.

All, then, that this rescript proves is, that powerful parties prevailed, in certain states, against the Jesuits, and that Clement XIV, notwithstanding the approval and confirmation of the council of Trent, evinced by their declaration, as above cited; notwithstanding the approval and confirmation of successive popes; notwithstanding his own approval and regret (all clearly inserted in this rescript); found himself compelled, by the pressure of unjust and arbitrary power, to withhold his confirmation, to suppress and abolish a society, to whom he knew it was doubtful, whether religion and piety or science and letters were more indebted.

Such is the analysis of the luminous brief of destruction, so triumphantly referred to by sir John Hippisley; such the sanction of peace {111}and amity with the philosophical ministers, Pombal, Choiseul, Aranda, &c. The pontifical domain was to be saved; the portions of it already seized, Avignon, Benevento, Ponte-Corvo, &c., to be restored; the turbulent Jesuits extinct, harmony and concord were to bless the earth! How were these glorious prospects realized? Every succeeding year involved the Roman see in fresh troubles: new invasions of its spiritual and temporal rights continued to distress the succeeding pontiff, Pius VI, and, at last, conducted him to death in a dungeon, although, to save his domain from the grasp of violence, he had consented, that Ganganelli's brief should subsist unaltered.

It is now evident, that the suppression of the Jesuits was the result of the conspiracy formed against them; in Spain and Sicily by the Inquisition, in Portugal by Pombal, and in France by the Jansenists, the parliaments, and philosophers: how just and wise we have seen; let us now inquire whence results their restoration {112}by Pius VII. "The catholic world demands, with unanimous voice, the re-establishment of the society of Jesus. We daily receive, to this effect, the most pressing petitions, from our venerable brethren, the archbishops and bishops^[47], and the most distinguished persons, especially since the abundant fruits, which this society has produced in the above countries (Russia and Sicily), have been generally known." There is a striking contrast between the simplicity and direct language of this bull, and the artful and complicated expositions with which Ganganelli labours in his brief to lull his own conscience, and to justify, in the sight of others, the act he thought to be necessary. And why is the re-establishment of the society demanded? From a hope, that they may counteract the evils, which the neglect of religious education has suffered to spread over the world, and from a {113}conviction that they were put down by the disciples of a false philosophy combining with the vilest of passions. In regard to protestant countries, their principles of loyalty are conclusive in their favour; and, in spite of the popish plots, it has been proved, that their religious doctrines never led them, as a body, to interfere in political affairs. These motives for their re-establishment, and my last observation, naturally remind me, that it is time to state the authorities, so highly honourable to the society, which I have been induced to examine and collect; there are, however, two other circumstances mentioned by sir John Hippisley, which I cannot pass over without notice. He objects to students for the priesthood among the Jesuits being sent abroad, to Sicily, to obtain ordination, instead of receiving it at the hands of their own national prelates. It appears, by this, that sir John is not aware that, in an order, it is requisite to obtain ordination through a superior of the order. {114}

In all religious orders, candidates for priesthood must be presented by their proper religious superior to some bishop. The prelate may examine the candidate; and, if he has no canonical objection, he promotes him to orders on the title of religious poverty; the superior, or the order, remaining answerable for his maintenance. But no priest of the regulars can assume any exercise of ministerial functions, in preaching, or administering sacraments, without licence of the diocesan prelate, who may examine, suspend, and correct him, incurring thus a certain responsibility. Of this subjection of regulars to the established prelates, surely, sir John must have been aware; why, then, endeavour to alarm us with the prospect of Jesuits colonizing in the south of Italy, for the purpose of overspreading these islands? I have reason, upon recent inquiry, to suspect, that sir John has been misled by his Sicilian informer, as to the voyagers for the priesthood; and the supposed system of seeking {115}furtive ordinations beyond the seas will vanish before a plain relation of a few trifling facts. In 1806 an ecclesiastical student, on account of his health, embarked for Naples in a neutral ship, which touched at Palermo, where he remained, having learned that Buonaparte had seized on Naples: he was joined, the next year, by another student, who went abroad from the same motive, that of health. To be of use to their catholic countrymen, whose number was daily increasing, by the arrival of new regiments, they entered into holy orders, though, it appears, they were not allowed to officiate as priests among them. These recovered their health, and returned home. In the course of the three ensuing years, one priest, and ten students, who were impressed with a strong desire to study in a catholic university, went also, at different times, to Palermo, where they experienced a similar disappointment in their zeal. Two of the students left Sicily before they were ordained, and one died before ordination, leaving nine, the whole number {116}ordained. The priest also died abroad. So that, instead of nineteen, there were altogether only nine, who obtained orders: one of these is the distinguished president of the new seminary of education in Ireland. For the last six years, not one catholic student has had a thought of following their example. Such trifling occasional emigrations of a few students will neither alarm nor surprise those who know, that, for more than two centuries, the penal laws have driven all English and Irish catholics, who were not content to live in ignorance at home, to seek education abroad; that this had become an invariable custom; and that every year scores of British subjects went abroad.

Sir John also objects to the Jesuits' appropriating any pecuniary resource, arising from the wreck of their society, to the uses of a seminary of education; he thinks it opposite to the principle, which gave birth to the institution of Maynooth; and is for seizing, and {117}bestowing on Maynooth, thirty thousand pounds of their money, which they are said to have generously transmitted to Ireland, for the establishment of a place of education (page 39 of the printed Speech). How would this agree with that spirit of humanity, benevolence, and hospitality, to say nothing at present of justice, which prompted the genius of Britain to give an asylum to these persecuted servants of God, against the relentless fury of jacobins and philosophers? Besides, the institution of Maynooth, and the establishment intended differ widely: the college of Maynooth is particularly designed for clerical education; that to which the thirty thousand pounds is to be devoted is to be a seminary for general learning; an establishment, which must be attended with most salutary consequences to Ireland, where it will prevent emigration of the catholic youth, and where, with religion and knowledge, it will undoubtedly confirm and spread the spirit of loyalty. It would be, I was going to say, madness; it would surely be unwise, to check, {118}on old worn-out prejudices, the happy growth of a spirit, which has, in that country, met much to struggle with, and only wants to be enlightened to show itself as firm and ardent as in any part of the empire.

After all, I have good grounds to know, that sir John is misinformed respecting the source of the gift of thirty thousand pounds to the new seminary: no money has been recently transmitted from the society here to Ireland. The sum, on which the new house of education is rising, was not secured by the Jesuits from the wreck of the society: it is, strictly, the private property of a free Briton. This, I am informed, on good authority, is the fact; but, supposing it had been saved by the Jesuits from the ruin of their continental establishments, from which they were so cruelly turned adrift, and plundered by despots, because they were Englishmen; nay, supposing every guinea of it had been coined at the mint of king Nicolas of Paraguay, could this authorize sir John to assume the despotic {119}principle of a foreign minister, a Pombal, a Choiseul, and to decide at once, de son chef, in the land of liberty, that his unoffending fellow subjects, who, under the safeguard of the laws, are prosecuting an honourable profession, shall again be stripped and subjected to arbitrary confiscation? If the Ganganellian maxim, that "the accused may be plundered without being heard," be tolerated at Rome, in the "plenitude of power, which the pope possesses, as moderator of the Christian republic," it is far otherwise in this happy land, where men, no longer persecuted for their religious opinions, maintaining their sworn allegiance to their king, are sure for their persons and property to find safety in the laws, and protection from the sovereign.

I have spoken of sir John Hippisley's opinions freely; I trust I have not done it coarsely. I was greatly surprised to find him taking the part he does. Of Clement XIV I feel inclined to speak more harshly than I have. I remember being pleased with his Letters when I was a {120}boy, upon the same principle that I was pleased with the meeting of the Etats Generaux, in 1789, at Versailles, where I was a spectator: a philosophical pope, and a philosophical senate, were mental bon bons, adapted to the puerile taste of my understanding; but, grown old, I have no relish for either. Ganganelli degraded the tiara, and helped to prepare the French revolution.

I now return to our authorities. I have anticipated several great names incidentally, while engaged in canvassing those cited against the Jesuits; to these I have now to add the empress Catherine of Russia; of many popes, Clement XIII in particular, and the very destroyer of the society, Clement XIV; M. D'Eguilles, president of the parliament of Thoulouse; the abbé Proyart, author of a work entitled, Louis XVI dethroné avant d'etre Roi; Montesquieu, Haller, Muratori, Buffon, Grotius, Leibnitz, Bacon, Frederick the Great, Johnson, Bausset, Richelieu, Raynal, Juan, and Ulloa; with a multitude {121}of historians and biographers, to say nothing of the Jesuit writers themselves. But the most striking testimony in favour of the society, is a formal judgment given by the bishops of France on certain articles proposed for their examination, by Louis XV, relative to the doctrine, the government, the conduct, and usefulness of the French Jesuits. How any man can withstand such an array of testimony, I am at a loss to conceive; and still more how he can venture, at this time of day, to arm himself with the calumnies and horrors of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, to attack a body of men, and a code of regulations, nowise accountable for the errors and crimes of individuals, at periods when men, in general, were as inveterate on the score of religious doctrines, as they have lately been on that of liberty and equality; when the Catholic and the Hugonot were alike ferocious and cruel, in the maintenance of their respective systems, though they scarcely equalled the fury and the horrors demonstrated by the deists, atheists, and democratical despots, who {122}preceded the settled tyranny, which has been just overthrown by the united force of Europe. The Jesuits were, indeed, the great preachers of the Christian religion, such as it had been received for ages; but they are no more answerable for the opinions on regicide, murder, and other horrid doctrines of former distracted times, than are the Washingtons and Franklins for the atrocities of the Robespierres and Marats in our own days of political insanity.

It will perhaps be thought necessary, that I should give something more than the illustrious names I have cited; I shall therefore proceed to prove, that I have not pressed them into the cause of the Jesuits, but enrolled them on their voluntary appearance. I shall omit those, whom I have already incidentally quoted, and arrange the others in the order in which I have mentioned them. {123}

Catherine, when at Mohiloff, found, that the people of that part of her dominions professed the catholic religion, and that they were very much attached to the order of Jesuits. She appointed a catholic archbishop of Mohiloff, and gave him a Jesuit as a coadjutor. She permitted, at the same time, the establishment of a seminary of Jesuits, the direction of which was confided to father Gabriel Denkiewitz, appointed vicar-general of his order. In the year 1783, she sent the archbishop of Mohiloff's coadjutor, whose name was Benelawski, to Rome, as minister from the court of Russia, who carried a letter from her to Pius VI, demanding the re-establishment of the society of Jesuits, which, though at the time disavowed at Petersburgh, through deference to the Greek Christians, was actually written with her own hand. The following passages are extracted from the letter: "I know, that your holiness is under considerable {124}embarrassments. Your dignity cannot harmonize with politics, so long as politics are at variance with religion. The motives, which have induced me to grant protection to the Jesuits, are founded in reason and justice, as well as on the hope of their becoming useful to my states. This assemblage of peaceable and inoffensive men shall live in my empire, because, of all catholic societies, they are the best qualified to instruct my subjects, and to inspire them with sentiments of humanity and the genuine principles of the Christian religion. I am resolved to support these priests against every power whatever; and, in so doing, I only perform my duty, as I am their sovereign, and look upon them as faithful, useful, and innocent subjects. I am so much the more desirous of seeing four of them invested with the power of confirming at Moscow and Petersburgh, as the two catholic churches of those cities are confided to their care^[48]." The pope made the circumstance {125}known to the French and Spanish ambassadors, who consulted their respective courts, neither of which, however, chose openly to interfere. It was an embarrassing situation for Pius VI; the suppression of the order was too recent; he wished neither to treat the memory of Clement XIV with disrespect, nor to embroil himself with France or Spain; and, in complying with the request of Catherine, he acted with circumspection and without parade. In considering this event, an obvious remark presents itself: for upwards of thirty years past, the society of the Jesuits have been established in Russia, yet we hear nothing of that empire being disturbed either with religious or civil broils, fomented by them; though I should not be surprised, if, on reflection, the death of Paul were to be imputed, by the modern conspirators, to their machinations. On the contrary, the internal tranquillity of that country was never more apparent, and the improvement of the mind has made rapid strides. The placing of the Jesuits in her dominions is a proof of the {126}sagacity of Catherine, and I doubt whether Russia was ever more indebted to any sovereign than for this step, which was at once magnanimous, wise, and popular.

I should not have thought of enrolling a pope among the authorities in favour of the Jesuits, it being natural to suppose, that every pope was a friend to the society, had I not found a list of them arrayed against them by sir John Hippisley, on the authority of Ganganelli's rescript. Now, that the sovereign pontiffs interfered in the proceedings and writings of the members of the society; that they blamed them for the dissentions in which their zeal involved them with their enemies in all parts of the world; and that they have condemned some of the fanatical (for this is a term as appropriate to catholic as puritan zealots), I say some of the fanatical maxims formerly preached by individuals is not denied, and has {127}been already noticed in these pages; and this is all that can be gathered from the rescript; but that this renders the popes impugners of the order is far from being the fact, and for this reason it is I have been induced to cite this pontiff, as well as his successor, in the catalogue of authorities. By the word impugner, I presume, that sir John means assailant; now, that the disapproval of some casuists, and the blaming of untimely or misplaced zeal of some of the society was no assailing of the order, the following words of Clement XIII, addressed to the archbishops and bishops of France, will, I think, sufficiently prove: "But the thing, which gives the deepest wound to the public weal, and to the faithful, which is the greatest insult to the apostolic see and to you, is the persecution they have raised against the society of Jesus, which has ever supplied the church with many able champions, and now, by the credit of a prevailing faction, is oppressed and dissipated. Its institute, that institute, which the Roman catholic church, {128}assembled in the council of Trent, approved of; that institute upon which our predecessors have bestowed so many solemn encomiums; which has hitherto found protection and received the most signal marks of favour from the kings of France; that institute, which you yourselves, not so much out of gratitude as from a principle of equity, have celebrated and publicly declared, that it was of very singular service to you in your respective dioceses, is now loaded with antiquated and groundless calumnies, is treated as a pest, which had crept into the church, and is publicly burned with all the marks of infamy^[49]."

Enough has been said of Clement XIV, in the foregoing pages, to entitle me to place him among the authorities in favour of the Jesuits, {129}though the solemn act, by which he extirpated the order, may be said to involve him among their assailants. The motives and grounds of that act are clear, and his private opinion of the order is no less manifest. Men, who approve of this act of Clement, are not aware that they are approving of a corrupt maxim, with which the enemies of the Jesuits calumniate the society. Besides, the destruction of the order was a certain evil, and the good to arise from it, the security and inviolability of the holy see, was far from being a certain consequence; the contrary has been proved by subsequent events. The growth of one generation sufficed to strip the tiara of the veneration due to it, and to threaten every crown in Europe with ruin. Philosophical universities and academies were every where, on the continent, substituted for the colleges of the Jesuits; religion and reason no longer went hand in hand in education; the latter, with all her spurious offspring, was held up as the grand object and distinguishing character of man; the former was neglected, {130}or ridiculed, and soon lost even its name in that of superstition. In 1773, Clement XIV abolished the order: in 1793, a king of France was beheaded; Reason was deified, and altars erected to her in various countries; anarchy followed impiety; demons were chosen to rule, or rather to confound all order. A successor of Ganganelli was torn from Rome, to die in captivity; and others have, since, been degraded into tools of the most absolute and heathenish tyranny that ever existed on the earth. It is very evident, therefore, that the preservation of the power of Rome did not depend upon the destruction of the order of the Jesuits, but, rather, that the rescript of 1773 was a warrant for the imprisonment, if not the death, of Pius VI, and the subsequent overthrow of the holy see. That rescript was, therefore, the result of a short-sighted policy. It is impossible to read Ganganelli's Letters, and deny that he was highly intellectual, virtuous, religious, and amiable; nor would I confound the philosophy which he cultivated, with that which is {131}destructive of religious hope and political order; but his whole conduct, in the affair of the Jesuits, proves, that his soul was not formed to the honours of martyrdom, as he was ready to act against his own conviction, and to sacrifice principle to convenience; a maxim peculiarly impugned by Jesuits, and by catholics in general.

In addition to the proofs of his good opinion of the society already given, I will here insert a passage to be found in the twelfth volume of the Annual Register. In addressing the courts of Paris, Madrid, and Naples, after his elevation to the pontificate, he states, that, "in regard to the Jesuits, he could neither blame nor annihilate an institute, which had been applauded and confirmed by nineteen of his predecessors; that he could the less do it, because it had been authentically confirmed by the council of Trent; and that, by the French maxims, the general council was above the {132}pope: that, if it was desired, he would call a council, in which every thing should be discussed with justice and equity, and the Jesuits heard in their own defence; that he owed to the Jesuits, as to all the religious orders, justice and protection; that, besides, the states of Germany, the king of Sardinia, and the king of Prussia, had written to him in their behalf; and that he could not, by their destruction, content some princes, without displeasing others." Nevertheless, without calling a council, without hearing their defence, he destroyed them; and, certainly, it will ever be a matter of astonishment, that, in a cause of such magnitude, a Roman pontiff, whatever motives may have impelled him to pronounce the suppression, could so far assimilate himself with the ministers of Portugal, Spain, Naples, and France, as to overlook that primary maxim, which Rome, whether Pagan or Christian, had in all ages respected: "It is not the manner of the Romans to deliver any man to die, before that {133}he, which is accused, have the accusers face to face, and have licence to answer for himself concerning the crime laid against him^[50]."

The writer of some anecdotes annexed to his Letters, relates one, which shows the notoriety of the fact, that his suppression of the Jesuits was not the effect of a bad opinion of the order: as it is applicable to the subject I will insert it here. "While the bells were ringing, and cannon firing, to celebrate his exaltation, the general of the Jesuits observed, with a sigh, there tolls our passing-bell. Not," says the writer, "that Ganganelli was hostile to the Jesuits, but because he thought it was necessary to attend to the representations of the sovereigns."

This gentleman was the Aristides of the French magistracy. I have already mentioned {134}him, when speaking of Monclar's Compte Rendu^[51]. His opinion of the persecution of the society will be seen in the following passage, which was addressed by him to Louis XV. "If the church be incessantly outraged, by the judgments passed against the institute of the Jesuits, the throne is still more pointedly attacked, upon the two principal motives, which instigate the enemies of the Jesuits to work their destruction. The first of these motives is, plainly, to deprive a society, which is entirely devoted to the interests of its king, of the education of youth; but more especially of the youth of the nobility. The second, which is equally as dangerous, is, to astound all the other bodies of the kingdom by the terrible fall of that, which seemed the most unlikely to be shaken; and thus to make them sensible, that the hatred of the parliaments is more to be dreaded than the protection of the king to be coveted."

In his work entitled "Louis XVI dethroned before he was King," speaks of the Jesuits in these words: "The Jesuits, considered only in the light of public teachers, were, during their existence, the first supports of the throne."—"The destruction of the Jesuits was the ruin of the precious edifice of national education, and gave a general shock to public morality." The abbé, from his many testimonies in favour of the Jesuits, being suspected to be one of their order, openly declares, "that he never belonged to the society, and that he owed them only truth and justice, for that he was not even indebted to them for his education."

I have already cited Voltaire, but I place him in the list here, for the purpose of inserting some farther extracts from his Letters. When {136}he was solicited by the Jansenistical magistrates to join with them in accusing the Jesuits of the crime of regicide, he gave this remarkable answer, in his Letter to the Atheist Damilaville: "I should rouse posterity in their behalf, if I accused them of a crime, of which Europe, and Damiens himself, have acknowledged them innocent." Writing, in 1765, three years after the suppression of the Jesuits, to the same Damilaville, he thus exults in the realized expectations of D'Alembert: "Victory declares for us on every side. I can assure you, that, in a short time, the rabble alone will remain under the standard of our enemies." In subsequent letters he declares, that "a general revolution was making its appearance in every quarter; that philosophy was gaining strength in the north of Germany; that similar revolutions were taking place in Poland, Italy, and Spain." Such was the rapid effect of the substitution of philosophical to religious education! However borne away by the charms of {137}philosophy, Voltaire was greatly attached to the Jesuits, and had the highest opinion of them: this he fully expresses in a letter to father de la Tour, principal of the college of Louis le Grand, where he was himself educated, which has been already cited.

Montesquieu, mentioning the government of Paraguay, then under the guidance of the Jesuits, as an instance, among other extraordinary institutions formed to exalt nations to virtue, alludes to the imputed ambition of the society to govern; to which he replies, "but it will ever be a glorious ambition to govern men by rendering them happy. It is glorious to the society to have been the first to give, in those regions, the idea of religion united with humanity. By repairing the devastations of the Spaniards, they have begun to heal one of the {138}most dangerous wounds the human race ever received. They have drawn wild people from woods, secured them regular maintenance, and clothed their nakedness; but even, had they done no more than add to the stock of industry among men, that would have been doing a great deal^[52]."

"The missions," says this celebrated natural philosopher, "have formed more men, in the barbarous nations, than the victorious armies of the princes, who subjugated them. It is only in this way, that Paraguay has been conquered: the gentleness, the good example, the charity, and the exercise of virtue constantly maintained by the missionaries, made their way to the hearts of the savages, and conquered their distrust and their ferocity. They {139}would frequently come, of their own accord, and beg to be made acquainted with the law, which rendered men so perfect; to that law they submitted and entered into society. Nothing can do more honour to religion than to have civilized those nations and laid the foundations of an empire, with no other arms than those of virtue^[53]."

"The enemies of the society," says Haller, "disparage their best institutions: they accuse them of inordinate ambition, on seeing a kind of empire formed by them in distant regions; but what plan can be more delightful, or more advantageous to humanity, than to assemble human beings scattered widely among the gloomy forests of America, to win them from the savage state, a state of wretchedness, to put an end to their cruel and destructive wars, to {140}enlighten their minds with the truths of religion, and to form them into a society like the state of mankind in the golden age? Is this not taking up the character of legislator for the happiness of men? The ambition, that produces so much good, cannot but be a laudable passion. No virtue ever attains that purity, which men are apt to exact; but neither is any virtue disfigured by the passions, while these serve to promote the general happiness^[54]."

It is hardly necessary to observe, that Muratori's character for talents, piety, and virtue, stands very high in the estimation of the learned. He was a celebrated Italian writer, a fellow of the chief academies of Italy, of the royal society of London, and of the imperial academy of Olmutz, and he was consulted as the oracle of {141}the age by the literati of Europe. He was born in 1672 and died in 1750. He was unconnected with the society of the Jesuits, and the high praises he bestows upon them could, therefore, only have been dictated by a just esteem and admiration. The following extracts are from his work entitled, Il Cristianessimo felice nella missioni dé Padri dellà Compagnia di Gesu nel Paraguai; a work which may serve as a commentary on the edicts, declarations, and manifestoes, of the court of Portugal under the dictatorship of Pombal. "I could wish, that some one among the enemies of the church of Rome, who carry their aversion to the Jesuits so far as to asperse the zeal of those admirable missionaries, and their purity of intention, in the laborious functions, which they discharge among the infidels, would only accompany them awhile in their apostolic excursions, to see and examine what they do, and what they suffer for the salvation of souls. He would undoubtedly, and that very soon, lay aside former prejudices, and, perhaps, what he had seen would suffice {142}to make him renounce his error." After enumerating, briefly, the charges against the Jesuits of America, such as their making themselves petty princes; engrossing the commerce of Paraguay; becoming dangerously wealthy and powerful; bribing governors; robbing the Indians, under cover of pleasing God, &c. &c., he says, "This is an abstract of the defamatory reports spread about the world, either by word of mouth, or printed libels, against the missionaries of Paraguay. I will advance nothing without clear proofs. I am not afraid of affirming, that all these imputations are calumnies and detestable forgeries, suggested by envy and malice." He then proceeds to prove them to be such^[55].

This triumvirate of religion and genuine philosophy were friends and admirers of the Jesuits; they are cited or referred to in the following Letters, I shall therefore be satisfied with naming them here.

"Frederic," says the elegant scholar already twice quoted^[56], "in spite of his sceptical vanity, appeared sometimes to be convinced of the dangerous principles of all those false philosophers, whose adulatory attentions he was weak enough to be pleased with. In one of these moments, in which his good sense retained the ascendency over his self-love, when the news reached him of the proscription of the Jesuits in France, by the confidential agents of supreme authority: 'Poor souls,' said he, 'they have destroyed the foxes, which defended them from the jaws of the {144}wolves, and they do not perceive that they are about to be devoured.'" Whomever the king of Prussia meant by the wolves, it is well known, that the same parliament that devoured the Jesuits in 1764, were equally disposed to devour the episcopal body in 1765.

It is very common to speak of superstition as a shade in the character of Johnson; and, no doubt, a modern philosopher will object to the authority of one so bigoted as to declare, "that monasteries have something congenial to the mind of man." Such objections, however, shall not divert me from enrolling him here; for, the opinion he expressed relative to the destruction of the Jesuits was the result, not of any superstitious motive, but of that penetration, which was not to be blunted by the opposition of prejudices. Mrs. Piozzi tells us, that, when he was at Rouen, "he conversed with the abbé Rofette about the destruction of the Jesuits, and condemned {145}it loudly, as a blow to the general power of the church, and likely to be followed with many and dangerous innovations, which might, at length, become fatal to religion itself, and shake even the foundations of Christianity." With Dr. Johnson let me place Dean Kirwan, who often declared, that he imbibed the noble ambition of benefiting mankind in the college of the English Jesuits, at St. Omer's^[57].

Bausset, bishop of Meth, in a Life of Fenelon, published so lately as the year 1809, passes a comprehensive and eloquent eulogium on the society, of which the following sentences form but a part: "Wherever the Jesuits were heard of they preserved all classes of society in a spirit of order, wisdom, and consistency. Called, at the commencement of the society, to the education of the principal families of the state, they {146}extended their cares to the inferior classes, and kept them in the happy habits of religious and moral virtue."—"They had the merit of attracting honour to their religious character, by a severity of manners, a temperance, a nobility, and a personal disinterestedness, which even their enemies could not deny them. This is the fairest answer they can make to satires, which accuse them of relaxed morality."—"These men, who were described as so dangerous, so powerful, so vindictive, bowed, without a murmur, under the terrible hand that crushed them^[58]."

The very names of these travellers suggest the virtues and the praises of the Jesuits. It was from their volumes that Robertson took his account of the settlement of Paraguay, and I do not think it necessary here to extend their testimony.

When the four ministers of Charenton presented very heavy accusations against the Jesuits to Louis XIII, cardinal Richelieu answered them all: for the sake of brevity, I shall extract only his reply on the charge of regicide. "As to what you say of their doctrine, with respect to the power they attribute to the pope over kings, you would have spoken very differently of it, if, instead of learning it from the private writings of a few particulars, you had collected it from the mouth of their general, who, in the year 1610, made a public and solemn declaration, by which he not only disapproves, but forbids all those of his order, under very severe penalties, to teach or maintain it lawful, under what pretext of tyranny soever, to attempt upon the persons of kings and princes." {148}

To the foregoing testimonies, let us add that of one of the bitterest enemies of Christianity. "The magnificence of the ceremonies," says Raynal, "attracts the Indians to the churches, where they find pleasure and piety united. There it is that religion is amiable, and it is at first in her ministers that she there gains love. Nothing equals the purity of the morals, the mild and tender zeal, the paternal solicitude, of the Jesuits of Paraguay. Every pastor is truly the father, as well as the director of his parishioners. There his authority is not felt, for he orders, prohibits, and punishes, only what is punished, prohibited, and ordered by the religion, which all of them, as well as he, worship and cherish."—"A government in which nobody is idle, nobody works to excess; in which food is wholesome, plentiful, and impartially partaken by all the citizens, who are conveniently lodged, conveniently clothed; in {149}which old persons, widows, orphans, and the sick, find a succour unknown in any other part of the globe; in which every one marries according to inclination, and without interest; and where large families are a comfort, without a possibility of becoming a burthen; in which the debauchery inseparable from idleness, that equally corrupts opulence and poverty, never accelerates the degradation, or rather the decline of human life; in which factitious passions are never excited, and well-regulated desires never thwarted; in which the advantages of commerce are enjoyed; without danger of contagion from the vices attendant on luxury; in which well-stored magazines, and mutual gratuitous succours among nations, rendered brothers by the same religion, afford a secure resource against the want that the uncertainty or inclemency of the seasons may produce; in which criminal justice has never been under the melancholy necessity of condemning a single criminal to death, to ignominy, or to punishment of any duration; and in which the very name of a tax or of a lawsuit is {150}unknown." Listen, I pray, to this account, from a quarter so unsuspected, of "the slavery in which the Jesuits held the Indians of Paraguay, and the atrocities which they exercised there;" for such is the language of their assailant, whom one must be surprised to find unacquainted with the writings of such an author as Raynal.

There are forty-five names of bishops subscribed to a reply made by them to certain articles proposed for their examination by Louis XV. Their judgment is given at considerable length, and the testimony of it is too valuable to be abridged. I have already referred the reader to the document, printed at length, in the Appendix, at the end of this volume; to enable him, however, to judge here of the importance of it, I will insert the articles in this place. {151}

The first is: "Of what use the Jesuits may be in France; the advantages or inconveniences that may attend the various functions, which they exercise under our authority."

The second: "How the Jesuits behave, in their instructions, and in their own conduct, with regard to certain opinions, which strike at the safety of the king's person; as, likewise, with regard to the received doctrine of the clergy of France, contained in the declaration of the year 1682; and, in general, with regard to their opinions on the other side of the Alps."

The third: "The conduct of the Jesuits, with regard to their subordination to bishops; and whether, in the exercise of their functions, they do not encroach on the pastoral rights and privileges."

The fourth: "Whether it may not be convenient to moderate and set bounds to the {152}authority, which the general of the Jesuits exercises in France."

The replies fully substantiate the utility of the society, the purity of their doctrine, the regularity of their conduct, and the consistency of their government with their duty to their king and country^[59].

Such, then, is the nature of the authorities, that rank in favour of the Jesuits; and the reader, by comparing them with the inveterate and corrupt spirits, which have been dragged from obscurity to destroy them a second time, will be able to estimate their respective value, and the motives of the new conspirators against them.

Perhaps enough has incidentally appeared, in the preceding pages, to inform the reader of the {153}chief crimes imputed to the society of the Jesuits, and to satisfy his mind of the falsehood of the imputations, as well as of the baseness and wickedness of the means contrived for attaching them upon those devoted victims. Many of the imputations are also removed in the following Letters. And when I consider, that the judgment of the bishops of France affords, on these points, a complete refutation of the slanders which have been lavished upon the society, I feel, that I should be wasting time, and abusing the attention of my reader, with unnecessary repetition. A brief notice, however, of some of the principal charges against the society, may not be unacceptable here. Let us inquire into those of ambition, commerce, and sedition.

In the searches which I have made, it appears to me, both from narrative of facts, and from reasoning on the nature of things, that the society of the Jesuits have been most basely slandered, as well as inhumanly treated. What {154}was their ambition? The glory of God, and the edification of man. But, say their enemies, how were these pursued? and were they always the real objects? The Jesuits are accused of shaping their course to the richest and most commodious countries; with extending the limits of the church to enlarge the circle of their commerce; with preaching sedition; with raising, on the cross, a throne to their ambition rather than to Christ. What do we learn from reason, and from fact? The roads to all ecclesiastical honours, all political employments, are shut to Jesuits, who renounce the former by a formal vow, and are prohibited the latter by the most rigorous penalties^[60]. The countries, where we hear of Jesuits, are inhabited by cannibals, by Hurons, Iroquois, Canadians, Illinoise, Negroes, Ethiopians, Laplanders, Tartars; they are barren deserts, eternal snows, burning sands, gloomy forests; there did these ambitious men live on wild herbs and bitter {155}roots, and cover themselves with leaves, or the skins of wild beasts; there did they run from cave to cave by day, and sleep at night in the hollows of rocks. Are these the abodes of luxury and wealth? It is indeed a glorious ambition to make men happy, to teach, and to save: such is the ambition displayed by the Jesuits, and the throne they raised on the cross was one of faith, hope, and charity.

With respect to commerce. By the canons of the church, it is forbidden to ecclesiastics, and, certainly, for good reasons. Commerce is a profession, a pursuit, to which men devote their time, for the purpose of obtaining a livelihood, and of amassing fortunes. It is a pursuit inconsistent with the habits and duties of the ministers of religion. This is the imputation meant to be thrown on the Jesuits, and which Pombal, their great enemy, and the enemy of every virtue, endeavoured to fix upon them. It was not difficult for them to repel this charge. They had a depôt at Lisbon, where {156}they kept effects, which served them instead of money. These things were sold, as a proprietor of land would sell his corn, to support the brothers of the order in America, who, having no income, could only be supplied with commodities, in those savage countries. If this did not militate against the spirit that prohibits commerce to priests, as little did the kind of traffic which was superintended by the missionaries in Paraguay, and which was, in fact, a species of piety. With what delight does one read the account of it, in the Voyage of Juan and Ulloa. "The Jesuits take upon them the sole care of disposing of the manufactures and products of the Guaranies Indians, designed for commerce; these people being naturally careless and indolent, and, doubtless, without the diligent inspection and pathetic exhortations of the fathers, would be buried in sloth and indigence. The case is very different in the missions of the Chiquitos, who are industrious, careful, and frugal; and their genius so happily adapted to commerce, as not to stand in need of any factors. {157}The priests in the villages of this nation are of no expense to the crown, the Indians themselves rejoicing in maintaining them, and join in cultivating a plantation, filled with all kinds of grain and fruits, for the priest; the remainder, after this decent support, being applied to purchase ornaments for the churches. That the Indians may never be in any want of necessaries, it is one part of the minister's care to have always in readiness a stock of different kinds of tools, stuffs, and other goods; so that all who are in want repair to him, bringing, by way of exchange, wax, of which there are here great quantities, and other products. And this barter is made with the strictest integrity, that the Indians may have no reason to complain of oppression, and that the high character of the priests, for justice and sanctity, may be studiously preserved. The goods received in exchange are, by the priests, sent to the superior of the missions, who is a different person from the superior of the Guaranies; and, with the produce, a fresh stock of goods is laid in. The {158}principal intention of this is, that the Indians may have no occasion to leave their own country, in order to be furnished with necessaries; and, by this means, are kept from the contagion of those vices, which they would naturally contract in their intercourse with the inhabitants of other countries, where the depravity of human nature is not corrected by such good examples and laws^[61]." This is the commerce, the only commerce carried on by the Jesuits; a commerce, that the apostles themselves would have maintained as a duty. I speak of the society, and of their spirit as a body; for I am not ignorant of the scandal which was brought upon them by the conduct of P. Lavalette, who, under pretence of augmenting the revenues of St. Peter's, ruined the mission at Martinique, and the cause of the Jesuits in France. What numerous body can be answerable for every individual of it? The circumstances attending the conduct of Lavalette are not very clear; but to contend {159}for his innocence is not necessary to the character of the order, the purity and integrity of which, however, derive a new demonstration from the very effect produced by his misconduct, be the guilt of that what it may, for it exonerates all the other Jesuit missionaries from the charge of trading. This charge had long existed, previous to Lavalette's affair: long before had hatred been upon the watch, and calumny active: long before had both the old and new world been full of Jesuit missionaries, and every where were they exposed to the scrutinizing looks of their enemies: no sooner was Lavalette denounced, than all eyes were turned upon him, and immediately all Europe rang with his name. Scarcely had that of the bold navigator, who discovered, or that of the sanguinary captain, who conquered America, travelled so rapidly, or with so much noise. Innumerable libels issued from the press, and nothing equalled the celebrity of the subject. What is the evident inference? This: that, although their enemies were so vigilant in observing, so skilful in {160}detecting, so eager to expose such of the missionaries, who, in spite of their institute, should become merchants, yet Lavalette was the only one that had ever afforded them a shadow of proof for such a charge.

The accusation of preaching sedition, and sowing the seeds of revolt, is equally unmerited. It is true, that the Jesuits were assiduous in preventing all personal intercourse between the Indians and the Spaniards and Portugueze, for which they were charged with a seditious intention of throwing off the Spanish government. I know not that the throwing off of governments should shock modern philosophers, or the modification of religion disturb their brain; but I know, that very different motives are assigned for this assiduity of the Jesuits, in excluding the Europeans from the Indians; motives, which merit honour here and crowns of glory hereafter. The reader will thank me for communicating them in the simple and affecting language of the Spanish travellers last cited. "The {161}missionary fathers will not allow any of the inhabitants of Peru, whether Spaniards or others, Mestizos or even Indians, to come within their missions in Paraguay. Not with a view of concealing their transactions from the world; or that they are afraid lest others should supplant them of part of the products and manufactures; nor for any of those causes, which, even with less foundation, envy has dared to suggest; but for this reason, and a very prudent one it is, that their Indians, who being as it were new born from savageness and brutality, and initiated into morality and religion, may be kept steady in this state of innocence and simplicity. These Indians are strangers to sedition, pride, malice, envy, and other passions, which are so fatal to society. But, were strangers admitted to come among them, their bad examples would teach them what at present they are happily ignorant of; but should modesty, and the attention they pay to the instructions of their teachers, be once laid aside, the shining advantages of these settlements would soon come {162}to nothing; and such a number of souls, who now worship the true God in the beauty of holiness, and live in tranquillity and love (of which such slender traces are seen among civilized nations), would be again seduced into the paths of disorder and perdition."—"Hence it is, that the Jesuits have inflexibly adhered to their maxim of not admitting any foreigners among them: and in this they are certainly justified by the melancholy example of the other missions of Peru, whose decline from their former happiness and piety is the effect of an open intercourse^[62]." It is also true, that the Indians did revolt, if that term can be applied to an act rendered unavoidable by the horrid avarice and despotism, which had conspired to sacrifice these happy and innocent tribes; but so far were the Jesuits from being instigators of the revolt, that they were in danger of being the victims of it, of which they were well aware. The facts would form a long and interesting {163}narrative; but it is only necessary, at present, to state a few particulars. A notion had been generated in the imagination of Pombal, the Portugueze minister, that, in the region of those happy settlements, there were mines of gold, unknown to the inhabitants. On these he cast his eyes, and commenced an intrigue for exchanging that territory with Spain, for others, at the immense distance of three hundred leagues. This being effected, he resolved, that the whole Indian population of Paraguay should be transported. The Jesuits were ordered to dispose the people to transmigrate. They, at first, ventured to represent modestly the difficulty of such a removal, and to conjure the officers of government to consider, what an undertaking it was, to transport, over such wildernesses, thirty thousand souls, with their cattle and effects, to a distance of nearly a thousand miles: they were sharply told, that obedience and not expostulation was expected. The consequences present a history, that might draw tears from the most obdurate. Now would have been the time for the {164}Jesuits to establish their empire, had the project imputed to them been founded. What was their conduct? Rather than become rebels, these faithful and humble subjects laboured earnestly to prevail upon the Indians to obey the mandate. Their exertions, however great, were not satisfactory, and new commands for haste were issued; a few months were allowed for an undertaking, which, if it could be executed at all, required years. This precipitation ruined the whole. The poor creatures, who were to be torn from their habitations, driven to extremities, began to distrust their own missionaries, and suspected them of acting in concert with the officers of Spain and Portugal. From that moment they looked upon them only as so many traitors, who were seeking to deliver them up to their old inveterate enemies. In the course of a short time, peace, order, and happiness, gave way to war, confusion, and misery. Those Indians, previously so flexible, so docile, insensibly lost that spirit of submission and simplicity, which had distinguished them, {165}and they every where prepared to make a vigorous resistance. The contest lasted a considerable time, during which the Indians experienced some success, but were ultimately defeated; some of them burnt their towns and betook themselves in thousands to the woods and mountains, where they perished miserably. After surveying all the plains, searching all the forests, digging all the mountains, sounding all the lakes and rivers, to establish the limits of the country, no mines were found, and the director of the scheme, Gomez, finding himself the dupe of his mad imagination and puerile credulity, wished it possible to conceal his shame and prevent his disgrace, by having the treaty between the two courts annulled. He even descended so low as to beseech the Jesuits themselves to endeavour to effect the annulling of it. They, of course, paid no attention to the entreaties of a man, whose insatiable avidity had caused the ruin of thirty thousand of their fellow creatures; and it was not till Charles III succeeded to the crown of Spain, that the treaty, {166}of which he had never approved, was annulled. There was now an end to the war in Paraguay, so fatal to its once happy, pious, and virtuous population, who, in consequence of it, lost not only their property, but their innocence, their piety, their docility, their gentleness, their simplicity, which were superseded by European debauchery, hypocrisy, and perfidy; vices that formed a new and almost insurmountable obstacle to the progress of religion, in those immense regions, where, for so many years, it had flourished^[63].

Having shown the pious nature of the ambition, which inflamed the zeal of the Jesuits; the paternal nature of the commerce, which consisted in necessary commodities, taken in barter for the provision of their establishments, and not in rich products, of various countries, freighted on wealthy speculations; and having {167}shown also that their conduct, in excluding Europeans from the Paraguay settlements, was not the effect of a seditious disposition, I should now conclude this chapter, did I not, as I proceed, feel more and more a desire to remove the prejudices, which an extraordinary combination of passions and talents, operating on the progress of human affairs, has spread over the character of men, who appear to me to have been actuated by the sublimest motives, such as might be attributed to angels; the glory of God, and the benefit of mankind. The picture drawn by the abbé Barruel of one of the ex-Jesuits, who was murdered at Avignon, in one of the revolutionary massacres, is a genuine and convincing representation of a celestial spirit, which never could have been nourished in a corrupt society, which must have owed its qualities to an exalted one. This portrait cannot but be viewed with love and admiration, and the reader would think an apology for placing it before him superfluous. {168}

"Avignon and the Comtat had been declared, by the assembly, united to France. Jourdan, surnamed Coup-tête, was at Avignon with his banditti. The unfortunate persons shut up in the prisons were devoted by him to death. An immense pit was opened to serve as their grave, and loads of sand were carried thither to cover the bodies. There were six hundred prisoners in the castle: the hour was fixed for putting them to death and throwing them, one after the other, into the pit. There was, at Avignon, a virtuous priest, one of those men for whom we feel, on earth, a veneration, like that paid to the saints in heaven. His name was Nolhac; he had formerly been rector of the noviciat of the Jesuits at Thoulouse, and was now eighty years old. For thirty years he had been the parish priest of St. Symphorien, a parish, which he had taken in preference, from its being that of the poor. During all these years, spent in the town, he had been the father and refuge of the indigent, the consoler of the afflicted, the adviser and friend of the {169}inhabitants, and he would not listen to their entreaties, to quit the place, on the arrival of the jacobins with Jourdan and his banditti. He could never resolve to leave his parishoners, deprived of their minister, in the beginning of the troubles of the schism, and far less to leave them, deprived of the consolations of religion, while under the tyranny of the banditti. Martyrdom, the glory of shedding his blood for Jesus Christ, for his church, or for the faithful, were, to him, but the accomplishment of desires and wishes, which, all his life, had been formed in his soul, and with which he knew how to inspire his disciples, when he was directing them in the paths of perfection. His life itself had been but a martyrdom, concealed by a countenance always serene, and always beaming angelic joy, with peace of conscience. His body, clothed with the hair-shirt, had needed the strong constitution, with which nature had endowed him, to support him under the mortifications, watchings, and fasts he endured, through all the activity of a minister and the austerity of {170}an anchorite. Daily at prayer and meditation long before light; daily visiting the sick and the poor, whom he never left without administering, together with spiritual consolations, temporal comforts, confided to his hands by the faithful; always poor as to himself, but rich for others, it was at length time to consummate the sacrifice of a life wholly devoted to charity and to his God.

"M. Nolhac, whom the banditti themselves had hitherto held sacred, was sent prisoner to the castle the very day before that on which the six hundred victims were to be put to death. His appearance among those unhappy persons, who all knew and revered him, was that of a consoling angel; his first words were those of an apostle of souls, sent in order to prepare them for appearing before the judge of the quick and the dead: 'I come to die with you, my children: we are all going together to appear before God. How I thank him for having sent me to prepare your souls to appear at his {171}tribunal! Come, my children, the moments are precious; to-morrow, perhaps to-day, we shall be no longer in this world; let us, by a sincere repentance, qualify ourselves to be happy in the other. Let me not lose a single soul among you. Add to the hope, that God will receive myself into his bosom, the happiness of being able to present you to him, as children all of whom he charges me to save, and to render worthy of his mercy.' They throw themselves at his knees, embrace, and cling to them. With tears and sobs they confess their faults: he listens to them, he absolves them, he embraces them with that tenderness, which he always manifested to sinners. He had the satisfaction of finding them all impressed by his paternal exhortations. Already had that unspeakable pleasure, that peace which only God can give, as in Heaven he ratifies the absolution of his minister on Earth, taken place of fear on their countenances, when the voices of the banditti were heard calling out those, who were to be the first victims, for {172}whom they waited at the gate of the fort. There, on the right and on the left, stood two assassins, each having an iron bar in his hands, with which they struck their victims, as they came out, with all their force and killed them. The bodies were then delivered to other executioners, who mangled the limbs and disfigured them with sabres, to render it impossible for the children and friends of the persons to distinguish them. After this, the remains were thrown into the infernal pit, called the ice-house. Meanwhile, M. Nolhac, within the prison, continued exhorting and embracing the unhappy prisoners, and encouraging them to go as they were called. He was fortunate enough to be the last, and to follow into the presence of his God the six hundred souls, who had carried to Heaven the tidings of his heroic zeal and unshaken fortitude^[64]."—Nolhac was a Jesuit!

CHAPTER III.

How many men are there, who never knew more of Jesuits than their name, that have, from the hideous caricatures, which have been drawn of them, imbibed such prejudices, and admitted such horrible impressions against the society, as to render it a wonder, and with some a scandal, that any person should dare to make the slightest attempt towards their vindication. On the perusal of this volume, I trust, that the wonder and the scandal will appear to be, that men should have so suffered their reason to be imposed upon, and their feelings betrayed, as to be tamely led into the views of the destroyers, {174}not only of this religious order, but of religion itself, and of social order. I will endeavour here to give a faithful miniature of the noble original, which, under distorted features, we have been invited to ridicule and to detest. I do not, however, pretend to offer to the reader a deep-reasoned discussion, but only a slight sketch of the much traduced institute of the Jesuits, and of the pursuits and past successes of the men, who devoted themselves to it.

Jesuits were never much known in this kingdom. They were never more than a small detachment of missionary priests, privately officiating to the scattered catholics, like other priests, sent from the English seminaries of Rome, Douay, Valladolid, and Lisbon. They were distinguished only by more pointed severity of the ancient penal statutes, which the wisdom and liberality of the legislature has considerably relaxed. This greater severity arose, not from their conduct, but from the general prejudice against their order; and, in England, this {175}prejudice kept pace with the esteem in which they were held in all catholic countries. Formerly, every enemy of catholic religion was their foe declared. Their perseverance and their successes still provoked new hostilities. It is the remark of Spondanus, that no set of men were ever so violently opposed, or ever so successfully triumphed over opposition. Their assiduity, in their multifarious relations to the public, in all countries, where they had settlements; in their schools and seminaries, in pulpits and confessionals, in hospitals and workhouses, in the cultivation of sciences, in national and foreign missions; all this professional business afforded them a large field for exertion, and enabled them to recommend themselves to kings, prelates, and magistrates, by signal services to the public, and thus to blunt the stings of envy and the shafts of malice. The small number, which frequented England for nearly two hundred years, in the face of the penal laws, had no such field of action. They were confined to administer the rites of religion to their brethren {176}in private houses; they were necessitated to live separate; they were forced to disguise their profession and character, and frequently their very names; they lived under the laws, and they were not protected by the laws; they knew, that the distorted character, drawn of them by their foreign enemies, obtained ready credit in this country, without inquiry or examination; and, as they could neither act nor speak in their own defence, it has happened, that the notion of a Jesuit is to this day vulgarly (I take the word in its full meaning) associated with the idea of every crime.

In foreign countries, the Jesuits formed a conspicuous body, to which no man was wholly indifferent. They could not be viewed with the eye of contempt. They were highly esteemed, and they were bitterly hated. In all catholic countries, the esteem and respect, which they enjoyed, were fully established. They were every where considered as pure and holy in their morals and conduct, eminently zealous for {177}religion, and highly serviceable to the public. Their enemies, at all times, were either open separatists from the catholic church, or secret enemies of it, who formed parties for its destruction; or they were rivals, who vied with them in some branches of the public administration of religion. From these sources proceeded, at different times, that undigested mass of criminations, unsubstantiated by proof, which are so inconsistently collected in the new conspiracy against the Jesuits. It is evidently folly to imagine, that a large body of men, connected with the public by a thousand links, surrounded by jealous enemies, could possibly be a band of unprincipled knaves, impostors, and miscreants. The universal favour of the bulk of so many polished nations forbids, at once, such an idea. Popes, kings, prelates, magistrates, everywhere protected and employed them. Bishops and their clergy everywhere regarded them as their most useful auxiliaries in the sacred ministry, because they professedly exercised every duty of it, except that of governing the church; {178}and this they renounced by vow. The people, in all towns, even in villages, felt their gratuitous services. A hundred years ago, if the public voice had been individually collected in Italy, France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, and Poland, undoubtedly, they would rather have parted with any other, perhaps with most other religious bodies, than with the society of Jesuits alone. A hundred years ago, all the continental sovereigns in Europe would have concurred in the same sentiment. With them they advised in all concerns of religion; to them they listened as preachers; to them they intrusted the instruction of their children, their own consciences, their souls. In those days, not only kings, but ministers of kings, and the great bulk of their nobles and people, believed in religion. They were sons of men, who had fought hard battles in France and Germany, in defence of catholic unity, against confederate sects, who had conspired to overturn it. Voltaire had not yet appeared among them. Religion was not yet presented to them as an object of ridicule. They {179}deemed of religion with reverence and awe, and they believed it to be the firmest support of the state and of the throne. They venerated its ministers, and among them the Jesuits, because they knew, that their institute was well calculated to form its followers to the active service of the altars, which they respected.

An idea of the institute of the Jesuits cannot be formed without consulting the original code; and the first inspection of it shows the author to have been a man of profound thinking, and eminently animated with the spirit of religious zeal. Ad majorem Dei gloriam was the motto of Ignatius of Loyola, the main principle of all his conduct. He conceived, that a body of men, associated to promote God's greater glory, must profess to imitate, not one or two, but, universally, all the astonishing virtues of the Redeemer; and, in planning his institute, he compressed them all into one ruling motion of zeal, which, in his ideas, was the purest emanation of charity, the summit of {180}Christian perfection. He everywhere employs his first principle, as the universal bond, or link, that must unite his society with God, and with their neighbours; and every prescription of his institute is a direct consequence of it. The greater glory of God is the first object that occurs on opening the institute. It is the first thing, on which every candidate is questioned; and, if he be accepted, the first thing to which he is applied. This alone decides upon the admission and dismission of subjects; this regulates their advancement in virtue and letters, the preservation of their health, the improvement of their talents, the distribution and allotment of their employments. Masters must teach, and students must learn, only to advance the greater glory of God: this is the rule of superiors, who command; the motive of subjects, who obey: this alone is considered in the establishment of domestic discipline, in the formation of laws and rules: it is the bond, which connects all, the spring, which moves all; every impulse given to the society must {181}proceed from this; this alone must accelerate or slacken its progress; for this alone it must be maintained; every person in it, every thing in it, prayer and action, labour and rest, rules and exceptions, punishments and rewards, favours and refusals; in a word, every thing in the institute of Ignatius has one motive, one end, one common motto, The greater glory of God; with this it commences, with this it ends.

Whatever may be the sentiments of persons, of different religious persuasions, of this plan of sanctity, certain it is, that the idea of it presents something noble; and, in the principles of the catholic church, it embraces the height of sanctity. To men acting upon such a principle, no virtue could ever be foreign, because every virtue in its turn might be wanted to promote God's greater glory. The aim of Ignatius was, first, to form them into perfect Christians; and hence he prescribes and requires, in all his associates, the full practice of evangelical poverty, perfect purity, and intire obedience to lawful {182}authority; and these virtues must be sanctioned by vow. He requires, that all and each should emulate the other great evangelical counsels, such as mortification of the senses, refusal of dignities and honourable distinctions, perfect disinterestedness in their several functions, &c. He conceived, that God's glory would be procured by the practice of these exalted virtues; but, faithful to his principle, he judged that God's greater glory required the communication, the diffusion of them among his neighbours. He earnestly wished to bring all men to know and adore the Son of God; and, in forming his associates for this ministry, he was not content to teach them to be saints, he would make them apostles. To the other obligations, which he laid upon them, he added the solemn vow of missions, binding them, whenever required, to carry the name of God, in the primitive spirit, to the extremities of the globe.

It would be an extravagant exaggeration to assert, that all the followers of Ignatius {183}emulated such high gifts: but it has been allowed, in general, by the best judges in the catholic church, and, in great measure, by persons of other communions, that a large portion of the founder's original spirit was infused into the society, which he formed; and that Jesuits, cultivated by the mode of government and rules of life which he established, achieved feats in every country, which religion must revere, and sound policy commend. Their institute does not stop short of any perfection, which the author of it thought attainable by human weakness. He prescribes in it a variety of means, which his followers must employ, to yield service to all, who surround them; and, though all could not be performed by each, he strongly confided, that his order would never be destitute of men qualified to execute every thing that he prescribed. Some things are exacted of all and each, others are to be suited to the different talents of the men employed; and the common education, which he gives to all, qualifies each to succeed in his respective department. Every {184}person, conversant in the affairs of the catholic church, will allow, that, by the constant attention of the superiors, not any means of helping the public, which the founder had prescribed, was neglected by the body of Jesuits; and the general utility resulting from all this was precisely the thing, that distinguished this body in the catholic church, and won for it the protection of popes and bishops, the countenance of kings and princes, the respect and esteem of nations.

As St. Ignatius, in his pursuit of absolute perfection, thought no virtue foreign to his institute, so he judged no service, which churchmen could yield to the public, foreign to his society. Without pretending to enumerate the various duties and occupations, which he recommends to its members, I select only a few, upon which he enters into more detailed instructions, and to which he specially calls the attention of all superiors, the zeal of all their subjects. They are, good example; prayer; works of {185}charity to the poor, the imprisoned, the diseased; the writing of books of piety and religious instruction; the use of the sacrament of penance; preaching; pious congregations; spiritual retreats; national and foreign missions; and education of youth in public and gratuitous schools. In the catholic scheme of religion, each of these things is deemed important; and the united voice of all, who knew Jesuits, gives them the full credit of having, during their existence in a body, cultivated, with success, each of these several branches. Their preachers were heard and admired in every country; their tribunals of penance were crouded; the sick and dying were always secure of their attendance, when demanded; their books of devotion were everywhere read with confidence; the good example, resulting from the purity of their morals, secured them, even in the last fatal persecution, from inculpation, it disabled the malice of calumny. In the impossibility of criminating living Jesuits, their worst enemies could only revile the dead. Hospitals, workhouses, and lazarets, were the constant scenes {186}of their zeal; their attendance on them was reckoned an appropriate duty of their society. During the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, when the plague successively ravaged every country in Europe, many hundreds of Jesuits are recorded to have lost their lives in the service of the infected. Several perished, in the same exercise of charity, in the last century, at Marseilles and Messina; and, during the late retreat of the French army from Moscow, not less than ten Jesuits died of fatigue and sickness, contracted in the hospitals crouded with those French prisoners, who, a little before, had ejected them from their principal college, at Polosk, after having plundered it of every valuable. It would be tedious to insist upon every point; but something I must say on the articles of missions and public schools, the two principal scenes of their zeal.

With respect to missions, the Jesuits might truly apply to themselves the verse,

Their perseverance in this field of zeal was universally admired; it secured success during more than two centuries; and the latest missionary expeditions of their society proved, that the original spirit was not decayed. Whoever had caught it from the institute of Ignatius was a scholar without pride; a man disengaged from his own conveniences; indifferent to his employment, to country, to climate; submissive to guidance; capable of living alone, and of edifying in public; happy in solitude, content in tumult; never misplaced. In a word, great purity of manners, cultivated minds, knowledge without pretensions, close study without recompence, obedience without reasoning though not without reason, love of labour, willingness to suffer, and, finally, fervor of zeal; such were the qualifications, which Ignatius's discernment directed his successors in government to seek, to select, or to form; and it is an acknowledged truth, that, at every period of the society, they always found men of this description to lead out their sacred expeditions to the four quarters of {188}the world. These men planted Christian faith in the extremities of the East, in Japan, in the Molucca islands; they announced it in China, in the hither and further India, in Ethiopia and Caffraria, &c. Others, in the opposite hemisphere, appeared on the snowy wastes of North America; and, presently, Hurons were civilized, Canada ceased to be peopled only by barbarians. Others, almost in our own days, nothing degenerate, succeeded to humanize new hard-featured tribes, even to assemble them in Christian churches, in the ungrateful soil of California, to which angry Nature seems to have denied almost every necessary for the subsistence of the human species. They were but a detachment from the body of their brethren, who, at the same time, were advancing, with rapid progress, through Cinaloa, among the unknown hordes of savages, who rove through the immense tracts to the north of Mexico, which have not yet been trodden by the steps of any evangelical herald. Others, again, in greater numbers, from the school of Ignatius, with the most inflexible {189}perseverance, amidst every species of opposition, continued to gather new nations into the church, to form new colonies of civilized cannibals, for the kings of Spain and Portugal, in the horrid wilds of Brazil, Maragnon, and Paraguay. Here truly flowed the milk and honey of religion and human happiness. Here was realized more than philosophy had dared to hope, more than Plato, in his republic, or the author of Utopia, had ever ventured to imagine. Here was given the demonstration, from experience, that pure religion, steadily practised, is the only source of human happiness. The new settlements, called Reductions, of Brazil and Paraguay, were real fruits of the zeal of the Jesuits. Solipsian empires, and gold mines to enrich the society, existed only in libels^[65].

The Jesuits were advancing, with gigantic strides, to the very centre of South America, they were actually civilizing the Abiponian barbarians, when their glorious course was interrupted by the wretched policy of Lisbon and Madrid. The missionaries of South America were all seized like felons, and shipped off, as so many convicts, to the ports of old Spain, to be still farther transported to Corsica, and, finally, to the coasts of the pope's states. One of these venerable men, Martin Dobrizhoffer, who had spent eighteen years among the South American tribes, has given, in his Historia de Abiponibus, the best account, that exists, of the field of his arduous mission. His work is here mentioned, because it is not unknown in England, and his testimony^[66] proves the persuasion of the best men at Buenos Ayres, in 1767, when the Jesuits were dismissed, that, if they had been at all times properly supported, by the courts of Lisbon and Madrid, especially {191}against the self interested European settlers, not a barbarian, not an infidel, would then have been left in the whole extent of South America. "This," says the author, "was boldly advanced from the pulpit at Buenos Ares, in the presence of the royal governor, and of a thronged auditory, and it was proved with a strength of argument, that subdued all doubt, and wrought universal conviction." The impression must have been strengthened by the subsequent dissolution of all the Reductions, in consequence of the inability of the royal officers to substitute other missionaries to those, whom they had ejected^[67].

Different was the providence of the superiors {192}in the old society, to perpetuate the race and regular succession of those wonderful men. If they had sent out from Europe subjects already formed to every virtue and every science, their virtues and their learning would have been almost useless, without the knowledge and practical use of the barbarous idioms of the Indian tribes. Every young Jesuit in Europe was first trained, during two full years of noviciate, to the exact practice of religious virtues. He was next applied, during five years, still in strict domestic discipline, to the several studies of poetry, rhetoric, logic, physics, metaphysics, natural history, and mathematics. Seven years of preparation qualified these proficients to commence schoolmasters, during five or six succeeding years, in the several colleges of their respective provinces. It was generally at this {193}period of their religious career, that several young Jesuits, instead of being employed to teach schools, were detached from the several European provinces, to the Asiatic colleges of Goa, or Macao, or to the American colleges of Mexico, Buenos Ayres, or Cordova in Tucumaw, where, in expectation of priesthood, they made a close study of the barbarous languages, which they were afterwards to speak in their missions. These were usually selected from the number of those, who had spontaneously solicited such a destination; and the number of these pious volunteers being always considerable, the succession of missionaries in the society of Jesuits could never fail. But it is time to say something of their schools.

The education of youth in schools is one of the prominent features of the Jesuits' institute. Their founder saw, that the disorders of the world, which he wished to correct, spring chiefly from neglect of education. He perceived, that the fruits of the other spiritual functions of {194}his society would be only temporary, unless he could perpetuate them through every rising generation, as it came forward in succession. Every professed Jesuit was bound by a special vow, to attend to the instruction of youth; and this duty was the peculiar function, the first important mission, of the younger members, who were preparing themselves for profession. Even the two years of noviciate mainly contributed to the same purpose. They were not lost to the sciences, since novices were carefully taught the science upon which they all depend. The religious exercises of that first period tended to give them that steadiness of character and virtue, without which no good is achieved in schools. They then acquired a fondness for retirement, a love of regularity, a habit of labour, a disgust of dissipation, a custom of serious reflection, docility to advice, a sentiment of honour and self-respect, with a fixed love of virtue; every thing requisite to support and advance the cultivation of letters and of science in future years. It has been already observed, {195}that the serious studies, which filled five years after the noviciate, were calculated, in conjunction with strict religious discipline, to form them for the serious business of conducting a school of boys during the five or six years, which were to succeed: and, in the discharge of this duty, they were bound to know and to follow, under the direction of a prefect of studies in every college, the excellent documents prescribed in the institute for masters.

It is not possible in a short compass to enumerate these instructions; but the mention of a few may suffice to prove, that nothing was forgotten. The object of Ignatius, in charging his society with the management of boys and youths, as it is announced in various parts of the institute, was to form and perfect their will, their conscience, their morals, their manners, their memory, imagination, and reason. Docility is the first virtue required in a child: and, to subdue stiff tempers, the remedies prescribed in the Jesuits' institute are, impartiality in the {196}master, honourable distinctions, and mortifying humiliations, applied with judgment and discretion: then, steady attention to maintain the established discipline and economy of the school, which is a constant, and therefore a powerful check upon the unruly. To secure it, says the text, hope of reward and fear of disgrace are more powerful than blows; and, if the latter become unavoidable, punishment must never be inflicted with that precipitation, which gives to justice an air of violence. In inquiring into trespasses, too nice and minute investigation must be avoided, because it inspires mistrust. The art of dissembling small faults is often a safe means to prevent great ones. Gentle means must always be first employed; and, if ever fear and repentance must be impressed, the hand of some indifferent person must be called into action; the hand of the master must be used only to impress gratitude and respect. If his hand is never to be the instrument of pain, his voice must never be the organ of invective. He must employ {197}instruction, exhortation, friendly reproach, but never contumelious language, haughtiness, and affronts: he must never utter words to boys, which would degrade them in the eyes of their companions, or demean them in their own. In the distribution of rewards, no distinction must be known, but that of merit. The very suspicion of partiality to character, fortune, or rank, would frustrate the effect of the rewards bestowed, and provoke indocility, jealousy, and disgust, in those who received none. Nothing so quickly overturns authority, and withers the fruit of zealous labours, even in virtuous masters, as the appearance of undue favour. The masters's equal attention is due to all; he must interest himself equally for the progress of all; he must never check the activity of any by indifference, much less irritate their self-love by contempt.

It were easy to multiply, from the institute, instructions prescribed to masters, to insure success in this first part of education, the {198}bridling of the rebel will of youth; but Ignatius knew, that these things would never be enforced by young masters, who had not learned the art of bridling their own. Discipline might bind boys to outward respect, but only religion and virtue can make them love the yoke; and no yoke is ever carried with perseverance unless it be borne with pleasure. Religion is the most engaging and most powerful restraint upon rising and growing passions; and to imprint it deeply in the heart was the main business of the Jesuit schools. The rest was accessory and subordinate. The principles of religion were there instilled, while the elements of learning were unfolded. Maxims of the Gospel were taught together with profane truths; the pride of science was tempered by the modesty of piety; the master's labour was directed, as much to form the conscience, as to improve the memory, and regulate the imagination of his disciples. The institute directed him to instil a profound respect for God; to begin and end his lessons by prayer; to cherish the {199}piety of the devout; to avail himself of it as a means to attract the thoughtless to imitation; and, by a special rule, he was charged to instruct his scholars in all duties of religion by weekly catechisms, carefully adapted to their capacity. The ecclesiastical historian, Fleury, remarks, in the preface to his historical catechism, that, if the youth of his age was incomparably better instructed than the youth of past ages, the obligation was owing principally to the catechisms of the Jesuits' school. He had heard them during the six years of his education in Clermont college.

Ignatius places herein the capital point of education: and he well knew, that where the grand motives of religion are not employed, an assembly of men will commonly be a collection of vice, especially in unexperienced youth, when growing passions always seek communication, in order to authorise themselves by example. To this point, then, he directs the rules of his subjects employed in education; to {200}this he calls the attention of every professor, the vigilance of every prefect of studies, of every master, the solicitude of every rector, the inspection of every provincial. The wise framers of the Ratio Studiorum, which is adopted into the institute, explaining his ideas still farther, require every master to study the temper and character of his pupils; to distract their passions by application; to fire their little hearts with laudable emulation. For this, they must encourage the diffident and modest, curb the forward and presumptuous: for this they must assign to merit alone those scholastic appellations of dignity, those titles of emperor and prætor, puerile indeed in themselves, but not less important to boys than are the sounds of titles, and colours of ribbands to men. On the same principle, in much frequented colleges, each class was divided into two rival classes, usually distinguished by the opposite banners of Rome and Carthage, which mutually dreaded, provoked, and defied each other, in classical duels, or in general trials of skill, each whetting his {201}memory on the edge of that of his rival; and then would often flow those precious tears of emulation, which watered rising genius, expanding it to fertility. Hence, again, are prescribed those public and solemn annual rewards, distributed with pomp and show, which reduced the self-love of youth to the love of virtue; which enamoured them of study by the prospect of success, and, by raising a desire of pleasing, really taught them how to please.

The institute proceeds to remove from youth every species of bad example. It directs the prefect and the master how to dissolve growing friendships, that might be dangerous; it forbids the public explanation of books, or of single passages, which might mislead active imaginations; it ordains a scrutiny of all books, that come into the pupil's use; it charges the master to watch every trespass against the rules of civility and good manners. Falsehood and detraction, swearing, and foul words, are to be quickly corrected, or not tolerated within the {202}college. It is, again, the master's particular duty to form the manners of his pupils to decency, modesty, and politeness; to correct their errors in language, their faults in pronunciation, their awkwardness in gestures, their coarseness in behaviour, not less than to cultivate their memory and regulate their imagination. For this purpose the institute, without neglecting modern languages, prescribes, for the justest reasons, the study of Latin and Greek, in the purest models of Athens and ancient Rome. It joins to these the study of history, and its concomitants, geography, chronology, and mythology; and all this must precede the introduction of youth into the regions of eloquence and poetry, where sportive imagination may amuse and feed itself for a while with brilliant images and expressive language: but the institute teaches how to reduce all this to the standard of reason and sound judgment, by the succeeding study of philosophy and mathematics; and these, in their turn, are the preparation for the deeper discussions of theology, which lifts the {203}soul out of the narrow sphere of human science, and enables the mind, and, still more, the heart, to make excursions into the immensity of God.

The short sketch, which is here presented, of education among the Jesuits, is enough to convince us, that no system was ever more solid, more calculated to produce eminent men, in every department of civil and ecclesiastical life. Undoubtedly it did produce a succession of them during two hundred years; and it thus verified the decisive sentence of Bacon, Ad pædagogicam quod attinet, brevissimum foret dictu. Consule scholas Jesuitarum^[68]. Perhaps the real value of the system is still better proved by the miserable state of degradation, into which public education and public morals have sunk in catholic countries, since its utter suppression.

But the founder of the Jesuits is not satisfied with suggesting what is right; he provides, what is still more necessary, proper masters to enforce it. He gives them two years of only spiritual, and five others of spiritual and literary education, to train them to their important task. With this he trusts, that their conduct will be irreproachable, that they will be worthy to be trusted with the grand interests of letters and of morals. He expects them to be docile, modest, and willing to be guided by their elders, who have successfully completed their course. They must be young enough to gain the confidence of children, and firm enough to command respect. To animate them to assiduity in duty, they must be provided with all necessary books; they must be stimulated to zeal by the prospect of God's greater glory; they must, therefore, be perfectly weaned from self-interest; they are required to yield continual service to persons, from whom they must receive none; they must impart virtue and knowledge, but never sell {205}either; they must inspire gratitude, and never profit by it; they must prove themselves deserving of every thing, and accept nothing^[69].

The society, in every period of its existence, possessed, in every country, many excellent and distinguished professors and masters, in every science which it professed to teach; and the {206}uniformity and steadiness of their education raised the bulk of its masters much above the rate of decent mediocrity. It is apparent, that, in the conducting of public education throughout a large kingdom, a body of men, well compacted together, and properly trained to the work, must possess superior advantages; and the world has long since agreed, that no other body of men ever did, or could furnish so many able and useful teachers, as the society of Jesuits constantly presented for the public service. There were, no doubt, elsewhere, masters, able to balance, perhaps to eclipse, the reputation of those of the society; but these men were seldom found, except in the first chairs of great universities; they did not diffuse learning throughout a kingdom, and the succession of them was not uniformly continued. The Jesuits were universally spread throughout a country, and every town had a chance of enjoying their best masters. Even in the first universities it has been allowed, that the Jesuits' schools were of use to the other colleges, and reciprocally {207}received great advantages from them. The spirit of laudable emulation stimulated both to generous exertions, and the general interests of learning were thereby promoted.

During the five or six years which the Jesuits employed in teaching, many of them obtained renown, and all, it may be presumed, had acquired the ready use of the Latin language; had discovered the bent of their talents; and had attained maturity of judgment and love of application. At the end of their course these masters, aged from twenty-five to thirty years, were now once more remanded to the benches, and applied, during four years, to the study of theology, under able professors, in the principal city and college of their province; thus forming a perpetual colony of forty or fifty mature and improved students, such as rival colleges could seldom equal. "At Paris," says cardinal de Maury, "the great college of the Jesuits was a central point, which attracted the attention of all the best writers, and of persons {208}of distinction in every rank. It was a kind of permanent literary tribunal, which the celebrated Piron, in his emphatic language, used to style La chambre ardente des reputations literaires; always dreaded by men of letters, as the principal source and focus of public opinion in the capital^[70]." What the cardinal asserts of Paris, was equally true of Rome, Vienna, Lisbon, and other great cities, which possessed the colleges of higher studies of the society. I conclude with remarking, that, if any part of what is prescribed in the institute had been retrenched from the education of Jesuits, their society would not have deserved such commendations from Piron and cardinal de Maury^[71].

If the outlines of education, which have been {209}here traced from the book of the Jesuits' institute^[72], do not win approbation, they may be presented to the reader, at least, as an object of curiosity. Serious men will, perhaps, think them more deserving of attention than are many of the ephemeral vagaries, which modern adventurers in the art of training youth daily obtrude upon the public. The Jesuits' system is recommended by the experimental success of two centuries; and, whether the plan was originally conceived, or only adopted and methodised, by Ignatius and his followers, certain it is, that, from the close of the council of Trent to the opening of the Gallic revolution, the main principles, on which it rests, even the practical details of it, with little variation, pervaded the education of the catholic clergy in all distinguished seminaries, whether directed by Jesuits or by others; and they may, therefore, be regarded as {210}the source of all the virtue and learning which adorned the catholic church in that period, and which the Gallic revolutioners were sworn to destroy. If these antichristian conspirators first doomed the Jesuits to annihilation, it was because their schools were widely diffused through Europe, and were marked by them as hotbeds of every thing which they chose to term fanaticism, bigotry, and superstition; that is to say, zeal, faith, and devotion. These were to be extirpated, to make room for fanaticism, bigotry, and superstition of another kind; those of equality, reason, and philosophy. And mark with what avidity they seized upon the spurious maxim, which had been attributed to the Jesuits, "that it was lawful to do evil, that their expected good might come:" falsehood, forgery, blasphemy, false witness, murder, regicide; every crime that a bad heart could suggest, a perverted head direct, or a venal arm perpetrate, was resorted to, to attain that summum bonum, jacobinism. They had before them the Monita Secreta and the Institute, and they chose the {211}former for the basis of their constitutions. I need not repeat the infamous doctrines collected in that forgery, which was published at the end of the pamphlet, that induced me to undertake to write these pages, and of which Clericus has given us an account in the following Letters; suffice it to say, by way of contrast, that horrors are there piled high one upon another, and said to be the secret code of regulations of men, who profess to take the institute of Ignatius for their guide, a code replete with piety and virtue. I have already said enough to silence the remark, that men may profess only and not act, for I have shown, that, if ever men acted up to their professions, the Jesuits have; but it will be an agreeable task to put some of the points of the institute, which have been distorted, into the view in which truth requires they should be seen.

First, let us glance an eye over the contents of this institute. It contains, not only what the founder wrote, but likewise all the papal {212}bulls and briefs granted to the society; all the decrees and canons of the several congregations, which form laws in the society; several instructions, precepts, and ordinations, issued by different generals, and adopted by general congregations, for universal practice; the general Ratio Studiorum; the privileges granted to the society by the holy see; the particular rules prescribed for every office in the society, and for every class of men in it, as priests, missionaries, preachers, students, &c. The groundwork of all this is what the founder himself wrote; viz. an Examen Generale to be proposed to candidates for admittance; Constitutiones Societatis Jesu; an epistle De Virtute Obedientiæ; a book of Spiritual Exercises; and, finally, many of the particular rules of offices. The Prague edition of the Institute, anno 1757, two small folio volumes, lies before me, and I have taken a good deal of fruitless trouble to find out some propositions denounced by the enemies of the Jesuits, without reference to the page or chapter. I have found nothing but what reflects {213}honour on the code. The objects of it are the glory of God, the general good of man, and the preservation of the society. In pursuance of the first of these, the members make vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; they mortify their senses, renounce worldly honours, and preach the Gospel. The means they use for the second consist of example, prayer, works of charity, pious publications, preaching, educating youth, and sending forth missions. For the third object, their preservation, they have appropriate rules of union, discipline, reputation, freedom from party, and moderation^[73].

Such is the code which has been so misrepresented. It is impossible, within the bounds of a pamphlet, and, indeed, I have already stretched into the latitude of a book, to give an adequate notion of it, and to combat the opinions which have gone abroad against it. These opinions {214}are so many adopted prejudices, the refutation of which is completely given in the Apologie de l'Institut, to which I must refer the reader, who will find in it many extracts from the institute itself; and I shall here briefly notice the vow of obedience, and the imputed despotism of the general, about which so much has been said.

"Their blind obedience! To be as unresisting as a dead body, or as tractable as a stick in the hands of an old man!^[74]." This language, taken disjointedly, is among the bugbears held up by the new conspirators against the Jesuits. It must surely be allowed, that obedience is necessary in every institution, where training the mind is an object, and the institute is not reprehensible for excluding wilful argumentation, while it allows every one the use of his reason. Blind obedience is not required for the commission of a crime, but in duties known to be pious {215}and moral, in actions evidently laudable. Nor is the expression of the text cæca obedientia, but cæca quadam obedientia^[75]. The rule is for the better training of the young and the inexperienced; and what school does not proceed upon it to the extent required by the institute, which excepts whatever is criminal, or morally wrong? It literally prescribes, that this kind of blind obedience shall, nevertheless, be conformable to justice and to charity; omnibus in rebus ad quas potest cum charitate se obedientia extendere^[76]. Nay, the order of the superior is not only to be examined, to see that it is free from a capital sin, but from any sin whatever; in omnibus quæ a superiore disponuntur ubi definiri non possit (quemadmodum dictum est) aliquod peccati genus intercedere^[77]. In a word, discussion is not forbidden by the institute, but in cases where it is evident that there is no sin; {216}ubi non cerneretur peccatum^[78]; a doctrine continually repeated on this head, quemadmodum dictum est, that is, in quibus nullum manifestum est peccatum^[79]. Where now is the horror of this obedience? It will seem a paradox to say, that the rigour of it arises from the mildness of the Jesuit government: but it is not less the fact; for, as all violent measures and corporal punishments are excluded from the society, a prompt moral obedience is absolutely necessary to its existence. It thus becomes an amiable, as well as an indispensable law.

But the despotism of the general? The obedience, which the Jesuits owe their general, is the same as that which they pay to their ordinary superiors. It flows from the same source, and tends to the same end. Having demonstrated the slavery of it to be a chimera, the despotism of the general naturally vanishes with {217}it. The nature of the society required, that it should be under a single chief: to have given to separate houses independent chiefs would have destroyed the great objects depending upon a union of councils. It was no cenobitical order devoted chiefly to working out their own salvation; but one, whose members were to be spread over the whole world, to promote the glory of God and the good of man. The institute, however, takes great care, that the chief should not be a despot: it gives him no slaves, nor even subjects, but friends, children, and counsellors^[80]; mildness is the sceptre it bestows upon him, and charity the throne^[81]; it {218}equally prohibits the superior to govern by violence and the inferior to obey through fear^[82]. The general is elected by the whole society, who first swear to choose only him, whom they believe to be the most worthy of the office^[83]. There is nothing arbitrary or changeable in the {219}authority of the general: it is subjected by the institute to stable and invariable laws, and his duties are minutely prescribed. If he deviates from them, it provides for his removal^[84]. Far from being a despot, he is not even exempted from the superintendance of a monitor chosen by the society, who observes his conduct, tells him of his faults, points out his duties, and is consequently compelled not to excuse him in any point^[85]. In spiritual affairs, the general is subject to the pope; in temporal matters, to the government under which he lives; and, in what {220}concerns himself personally, or the society solely, to a general meeting of the order^[86]. Though elected for life, he may be deposed for several reasons stated in the institute; and the same hands that clothed him with power may strip him of it^[87]. It has been said, that the motive for appointing a single chief was the facility it offers for promoting more certainly the ends of ambition. The institute strongly condemns ambition in individuals, and still more strongly in the general^[88]. One great {221}charge against the power of the general is, that his authority may injure that of sovereigns, by withdrawing their subjects from their obedience: on the contrary, he is expressly forbidden, by the institute, to take from a state any Jesuit whatever, without the knowledge of the sovereign^[89]. The annulling of contracts is another source of abuse, founded on a mistaken passage in the institute, where it is said; "Although the general, by his open letters to particular superiors, confers on them an ample power in that respect, yet that power may be restricted and limited by private letters." This passage has no reference to contracts, and relates only to the power given openly to local superiors to dismiss improper persons; and there can be no objection to the private limiting of that power. But the most obnoxious charge of all is, that the general of the Jesuits maintains spies everywhere, for the purpose of diving into the secrets of courts, and into the {222}affairs of private families. The institute contains a rule directly the reverse of this assertion, a rule by which he is expressly prohibited from meddling in affairs that do not concern the society, even under any pretext of piety or religion^[90].

After all, then, the general of the Jesuits is not such a monster as he has been painted, and it is absurd to suppose, that a learned and sensible old man, who, about to give an account of his ministry to God, has but a few years to fill the office, should consider it as the spring of every kind of crime; it is absurd to suppose, that the brethren of the order, who have sacrificed every thing on earth to the hope of finding under the empire of the institute the greatest perfection of the Christian character, should believe, that they are obliged, by virtue of that very institute, to commit the greatest sins man is capable of; and it is absurd to {223}suppose, that, if a general were mad enough to abuse his power, there would not be found a pope wise enough, or Jesuits virtuous enough to depose him, conformably to the laws of the church and of the institute.

Formerly, when the Jesuits had powerful protectors, the practice was to turn them into ridicule; now, that they have powerful enemies, the object is to stigmatize them with every vice. Nothing is more difficult, or more delicate, than to parry ridicule; but, to refute abuse, one has only to expose it.

In the present state of the continental powers, it seems hardly possible, that the society of Jesuits should recover its ancient importance, but their destruction must ever be lamented; and, since their unrelenting enemies have tempted the public curiosity to inquire into their history, this chapter shall be closed with a brief account of the final catastrophe of that small portion of their body, which for two {224}hundred years was connected with England, by the common bonds of country, language, and blood.

About the year 1590, the English Jesuits obtained, from the liberality of Philip II of Spain, the foundation of their principal college at St. Omer; and, soon after, the bishop of that city conferred upon them an ancient abbey, with its demesnes, situated in the neighbouring small town of Watten. A few years later, they acquired the foundation of their college at Liege, from Maximilian the elector of Bavaria, and likewise a smaller settlement in the city of Ghent. In these several houses, they applied themselves to the education of British catholic youth, and to the formation of missionaries. In 1762, the two first-mentioned of these establishments were subjected to confiscation by the unsparing arrêts of the parliament of Paris. The inhabitants could obtain no mercy, on the consideration of being foreigners admitted on the public faith; they were all ejected, {225}without the smallest allowance for their support, or even for their return to their native soil. They presented themselves to the Austrian government of the Netherlands, at Bruxelles; they were admitted under an octroi, the most solemn act of that government, and they established themselves in the city of Bruges. In 1773, on the appearance of pope Clement XIV's destructive brief, they were once more unmercifully pillaged, in despite of the public faith, pledged in the octroi; and here the fangs of fiscal avarice were sharpened to an uncommon edge, because it was the persuasion of that despotic government, that, being Jesuits, they deserved no pity, and, being English, they must be rich. At the same period, their large college at Liege was stript of all its income, by the two courts of Munich and Rome, and the inmates of the house were also here turned adrift, without any allowance for their personal subsistence. In this utter distress, a few of these persecuted men, who remained at Liege, not quite dispirited by their calamities, were encouraged by the prince {226}bishop of Liege, to form, within the old college, a school and a seminary of priests. The plan was sanctioned by a brief of pope Pius VI; they found friends, and unremitting labour and industry during twenty years advanced their work to a degree of consistency, which merited the approbation and confidence of the public. But all this was of no avail. Utter destruction was to be their doom. In 1794, when the French armies, by one general sweep, overturned, in the Low Countries, every thing that related to the religion of Jesus Christ, they were finally dislodged and scattered; their house and all their valuables were left to the disposal of those outrageous freebooters; waggon-loads of their best books were converted into wadding for the cannon; their mathematical and optical cabinet was pillaged; they retired in sorrow, each to seek a refuge, with hardly a hope of seeing better days. Thus terminated the English province of the society of Jesus. A few of these ancient men, who have weathered the whole storm, are still alive, {227}comforting their old age with the late public testimony of the head of the church, that they deserved a better fate. Having availed themselves of the indulgence of the British government, on leaving the Netherlands they sought an asylum in their own country. They here subsist, in the security of conscious innocence, fearless of the prejudices and malice of a few unprovoked foes, who know not how to harrass them but by the old weapons of misrepresentation and slander. They have pledged their allegiance to their king and country, in the comprehensive oath of 1791; they meddle not with general or county politics; they seek no offices of state, that remaining stumbling block in the way of the catholic nobility and gentry; they attend solely to their own professional concerns; and, as peaceable and loyal subjects, they may justly expect protection for their persons and for their property. Friends of the government and of the country, friends of monarchy, friends of public tranquillity, friends of order and {228}subordination, friends of religion, friends of morality, friends of letters, shall they not be protected? Ignorance, prejudice, and passion, shall not prevail against such men.

CHAPTER IV.

The success of the old conspiracy against the Jesuits will not be wondered at, when we reflect upon the character of the age in which it was formed, and on the means that were used to mature it. Ignorance was the lot of the generality of men: despotism pervaded courts, and tools were never wanting to shape events to the will of the powerful. Of the parliaments, the university, and of the Jansenists, enough has been said to show the inveteracy and malignity with which they carried on their unjust persecutions of the society, and to expose the {230}causes of their conduct; but, in the mention which has occasionally been made of the Portuguese minister Carvalho, marquis of Pombal, the great persecutor of the Jesuits, too little has been said to account for his hatred of them; I will, therefore, here, make him the subject of a few pages.

During the reign of John V, the Jesuits were in high favour at the court of Lisbon. That king expired in the arms of the famous Malagrida. Carvalho was then a real or pretended friend of the society. The Jesuits, whom king John consulted, recommended him, with little forecast, for the embassies of London and Vienna, and, afterwards, to his successor, Joseph I, as prime minister. He soon, however, betrayed his jealousy of the power and credit of the Jesuits; and he determined to effect their ruin. The first opportunity of persecuting them arose from the treaty with Spain, for an exchange of lands and fixing new boundaries in South America, the motive of which we have {231}already seen. The disorder, that ensued among the Indians, the marquis imputed to the influence and ambition of the Jesuits; whence arose the absurd fable of the Jesuit king Nicolas, and of the project and attempt to usurp the dominion of South America, which, with great industry and many foul arts, he propagated all over Europe. The insurrection of the Paraguay Indians is usually called the first cause of Pombal's hatred of the Jesuits. In his ambitious views of engrossing all authority and power, he dreaded opposition from the king's brother, don Pedro, who was greatly attached to the order. A dispensation had been obtained from Rome to allow don Pedro to marry his niece, and Pombal, with confidence of success, endeavoured to prevent the marriage. He strove to inspire the king with jealousy of his brother, suggested various reasons why the princess ought to be given to some foreign prince, and recommended William duke of Cumberland in preference to all others. The king consulting his confessor, F. Moreira, that {232}Jesuit prevailed upon his master to reject the proposal. On that occasion, the marquis vowed vengeance, not only against the prince and F. Moreira, but against the whole order of Jesuits. Another grand cause of his rage against the society was but too well known to the missionaries. The greatest obstacle to the success of their missions among the Indians had always been the prevalence and violence of the rich European settlers, and more frequently still of the royal governors. They had often succeeded, by their credit at Madrid and Lisbon, to protect the poor Indians from personal outrage and slavery, yet it was always a difficult struggle. Pombal had made his brother, who was called Xavier Mendoza, governor general of Maragnon, in the Brazils, and never had the country before known a tyrant so despotic and outrageous. The pious queen dowager, Mariana of Austria, greatly favoured the missions. When any Jesuits sailed for Brazil, she regularly exhorted them to attend seriously to the propagation of religion, and directed them to inform {233}her exactly of whatever obstacles they might experience from the king's officers, and the Portuguese settlers, promising redress for their injuries and concealment of their names. In full confidence of her protection the missionaries often preferred serious complaints against Xavier Mendoza, and the wrongs of the poor Indians were frequently redressed. The minister's anger at these accusations of his brother, of which he could not discover the authors, almost drove him mad: but the queen dying, he contrived to get possession of her private papers, and discovered the channel of intelligence. His increased rage against the missionaries and Jesuits in general may be imagined. The conduct of the Jesuits, after the earthquake in 1755, afforded him fresh grounds of enmity. They spread themselves through the city and the adjacent country, everywhere inviting the people to repentance. Their sermons were everywhere attended by multitudes, their confessionals were thronged. Penitential processions were instituted, the city was edified. In their {234}discourses, they attributed the public calamity to a special visitation of Divine Providence, with the design of chastising the increasing depravity of morals in all ranks, and inviting them to repentance. The court was pleased with the exertions of the Jesuits. The king, in particular, thanked their provincial, and ordered the repairs of their professed house to be undertaken and defrayed by the royal treasury. This mark of royal favour sorely mortified the minister: he complained of the fanaticism of the Jesuits, especially of Malagrida, who had printed a discourse on the subject of the earthquake, which was read and highly commended by the king. His majesty had signified his intention of making a spiritual retreat, or exercise, for a week, under the direction of that celebrated father. The marquis, after innumerable other artifices to discredit the Jesuits, and their doctrine of an interfering Providence, assured the king, that a conspiracy was formed to overturn the government; that, unless Malagrida were withdrawn, a public sedition would ensue. The {235}king, intimidated, at length consented to his removal; but the crafty minister, dreading the resentment of the whole city, applied, the same day, to the pope's nuncio, and stating the king's authority and positive request, prevailed upon him to order Malagrida to retire from Lisbon to Setubal. He then forbade processions, or other marks of public penance and devotion, publicly alleging, that the misfortune of the city was to be attributed solely to natural causes; and by these and other means he succeeded in keeping the weak king in constant dread of imaginary plots, conspiracies, and insurrections. The king was soon completely subdued; every thing was abandoned to the disposal of the minister, his authority and power became absolute, and he soon displayed his real character in such a series of despotic and tyrannical deeds as the annals of mankind cannot equal. These may be found fully detailed in the four volumes of his life, printed at Florence in 1785; in Memoires du Marquis de Pombal; in Anecdotes du Ministère du Marquis de Pombal; and in various other {236}publications. His power with the king expired in 1777, when he was imprisoned, impeached, and convicted, by the unanimous voices of his judges, of enormous crimes, deserving capital punishment. The queen was prevailed upon, by the intercession of some of the foreign courts, to remit the sentence: he was only banished to Pombal, where he died in 1783. "Who would think," said the abbé Garnier, in his funeral oration for Joseph I, "that one man, by abusing the confidence and authority of a good king, could, for the space of twenty years, silence every tongue, close every mouth, shut up every heart, hold truth captive, lead falsehood in triumph, efface every trace of justice, force respect to be paid to iniquity and barbarity, and enslave public opinion from one end of Europe to the other?" Such was Sebastian Joseph Carvalho, marquis of Pombal, the enemy of the Jesuits, and prime promoter of their destruction. The very enmity of such a man is a strong negative proof of innocence and virtue. {237}

But the cry was up; the society was to be destroyed; envy, hatred, and malice led the chace; atheism, deism, and philosophy, with their attendants, ridicule and sophistry, joined in the pursuit, and the victim was hunted down. The founders, or rather the finishers and embellishers of the modern school of reason, could not endure men, who preached doctrines and maintained principles so opposite to their own new-fangled systems. They knew, that respect for revealed truths, and reverence for established authority, the two objects of their detestation, were the main pivots on which the whole system of the education of the Jesuits turned. Deum timete, regem honorificate, "Fear God and honour the king," was their adopted maxim: religion and loyalty were never disunited by them, and the revolutionary conspirators had determined to subvert both. These everywhere opened schools of philosophy, as they affected to term it; that is, schools of impiety and irreligion; where God, his mysteries and his laws, were cited to the tribunal of proud and depraved {238}reason; where it was a rule to reject what was not comprehended, to ridicule whatever checked and restrained youthful passions, to begin by examining every thing incoherently, and to end by believing nothing. Infinite were the arts by which these odious maxims were infused; and they were all sweetened by previous lessons of libertinism and dissoluteness, which soiled the imagination by the most obscene productions, and corrupted the heart by the most abominable maxims. They were multiplied under the titles of poems, histories, dissertations, romances; they imposed upon the simple by affected doubts of the most established truths; by impudent assertions, that religion is now abandoned to the weak, the ignorant, the vulgar. The interest of vice soon inveigled their disciples to re-echo the cry, that lessons, drawn from belief and fear of the Supreme Being, are no more than the accents of fanaticism, superstition, and bigotry^[91]. {239}Jesuits were the avowed heralds of these degrading lessons, they were not philosophers. "No," says D'Alembert, one of the fathers of the new system, "the Jesuits have been teaching {240}philosophy two hundred years, and they have never yet had a philosopher in their body."

In the meaning of these writers, the charge must be fully admitted. Never did Jesuits harbour within their walls the maxims or the doctrines of modern sophisters. They acknowledged no philosophy, that appeared to infringe revelation or morals; but not on that account did they forego a modest claim to the title of philosophers. Those among them, who best deserved it, were actively employed in detecting, exposing, and refuting the fallacies of the modern Voltairian school; and, without affecting the peculiarity of the name, they were satisfied with being philosophers in the ancient acceptation of the term; that is, while they inculcated respect for divine revelation, and for established authority, they never ceased, during two hundred years, to furnish a succession of professors, who unfolded the principles of natural and of moral knowledge. And what branch of human {241}science was banished from their schools? Their public lessons might be called elementary by deep proficients; but they were accommodated to the capacity of the bulk of their youthful auditors; their object was to awaken in them the love of science, to lay the foundation on which the edifice of deep knowledge was afterwards to rise. It is allowed, that the most distinguished scholars in every branch, in past times, generally had been trained in the Jesuits' schools; and can it be said, with truth, that none of the masters, who had taught them, ever rose to eminence; that none of them were philosophers? That they never affected to assume the title is allowed: their philosophy was more circumspect. On their first principle they accepted, and they taught others to accept, without hesitation, the oracles of the church of Christ; they never blushed for their faith, or, as it was miscalled, their credulity. They believed sublime truths, that surpassed comprehension, because they feared God, who attests them, and knew that he cannot deceive. {242}Fixed in this first principle, they conceived no incongruity in joining to it eager researches into the secrets of nature, steady pursuit of improvement in every human science. If eminence in these justly confers the title of philosopher, it is strange, that the doctors of the new antichristian school should have overlooked the names of innumerable Jesuits in every branch of science, who were respected as philosophers, until faith in divine revelation was reckoned to depreciate all literary merit. It would be tedious to rehearse the multitude of names, which might be adduced; but I must observe, that the succession of them was never discontinued; and that, in the very last state of the society, there were men among them revered and consulted by the most eminent professors and academicians, who disdained to be mere disciples of Voltaire and D'Alembert. The best mathematicians of Italy bowed to the names of Ricati and Lecchi. The most eminent astronomers frequented the observatories of the Jesuits at Rome, Florence, and Milan, directed by the fathers Boscovich, {243}Ximenes, and La Grange. Fathers Meyer and Hall were celebrated through Germany, and the Polish Jesuit Poczobult, the royal astronomer at Wilno, was known wherever astronomy was cultivated. The celebrated M. La Lande, and our own astronomer, Dr. Maskelyne, did not disdain his correspondence. La Lande, in particular, in his writings, mentions these Jesuit philosophers with honour.

It is the remark of M. Chateaubriand^[92], that, without any prejudice to other literary societies, the Jesuits were truly styled Gens de Lettres, because the whole circle of sciences was more or less cultivated among them. It was a rare case to meet with a Jesuit devoid of scientific knowledge. Their reputation, in this point of view, contributed much to the esteem in which the society was formerly held, before the strange concurrence of causes, which has not been hitherto explained, had operated upon the {244}catholic princes to discard them, and, in so doing, to open volcanoes beneath their thrones.

The destruction of the Jesuits was, literally, the destruction of that education, in catholic countries, by which order was established on its best and surest foundation, the belief of future rewards and punishments, and the conviction, that man was on earth but a transient being, whose chief object was to work out his salvation and eternal happiness in another world; a conviction, that could only be impressed upon the mind by the truths of revelation. It is no part of my object here to enter into a dissertation upon the comparative excellencies and defects of religious systems; but I maintain, that the distinguishing faculty of comprehending religious subjects, and the disposition to be influenced by them, interwoven in the nature of man, are proofs, that it is intended by God that he should be principally and generally influenced by religious motives; and that morality, with all its beauty, to be valuable, must originate in {245}that source. Let even temperate philosophers say what they will of morality, independent of religion, there is one striking advantage to states arising from the latter, which the former cannot yield. Contentment and resignation are the fruits of religion; insulated morality generates discontent, and has a perpetual tendency to doubt the justice of the inequality of conditions in this life; very naturally too, if the short race of it be all to which our hopes and fears can extend. There is also a gradation in morality; there is a confined and a refined morality. Suum cuique tribuitur is a maxim of confined morality; the refined moralist is a cosmopolite; and, still more refined, he denies the rights of meum and tuum; and the government that suffers one man to enjoy more than another is an unjust government, consequently man ought to seek a just one, and so we have the revolutionary system. It is only religion, it is only the Christian religion, which can reconcile morality to the state of man. This is the beautiful morality which binds him in social order, {246}which gives to Cæsar what is due to Cæsar, and, in securing to every man the rights he has obtained of property, calls upon him to rectify the selfishness of corrupted nature; to do as he would be done by, to love his brother as himself, and still farther to assimilate himself to his Master and to his God, by loving his enemies. Divine morality! which could have flowed only from a divine source! Divine legislation! dictated by God himself! It is unfortunate, that the nature of man will not permit the spirit, and even the outward forms, of a religion so adapted to the actual condition of the human species to be universal; and, that the different views taken of the text, by the variance of the human understanding, should diverge into incongruous systems, and excite religious dissentions. But, however this may be deplored, it is still more deplorable, that it should ever enter into the mind of man to establish systems of education, in which that which should be the foundation of it is totally excluded from it; that the end of knowledge should be separated {247}from the means of it; that the rudiments of instruction should be devoted solely to the acquisition of worldly arts, of which the operation is to be left to the direction of ignorance and selfishness. It is astonishing, with the experience men have so lately and so dearly gained, that there can be found one to approve of a system, in this country, the archetype of which has desolated Europe and ruined France. In attributing the explosion of the French revolution to the deistical and atheistical philosophers, I do not hesitate to attribute the long continuation of it to the change that took place in the forms of education; to the universities of Buonaparte^[93], to the confining of men's interests to {248}the duration of life. In this country, there is a system in full operation, and patronized by some of the first characters of the state, by which a very large portion of the people will, in a few years, consist of persons able to read, write, and keep accounts, who will have no knowledge, or an erroneous one, of the duties and sanctions of religion, and whose morality will consequently be dependent on their reasoning faculties; and I am very much mistaken if those faculties will not lead to similar conceptions and similar effects as those produced by the reasoning faculties of 1788 and 1789. This opinion cannot be mistaken for one of intolerance. I think it would have been happier had the whole nation been of one accord in every point of religion; and I see, in the church of England, sufficient inducements to have restrained minds, sensible of the danger of innovation, from making a few points of mysterious doctrines a plea for separating from her; but while I say this, I am far from thinking that men should be compelled into modes of worship, {249}I am only sorry to see them dissenting. I am an advocate for the toleration of conscientious scruples; but there is one thing which I think no government ought to tolerate, and that is public schools openly professing to banish religious instruction; for they must prove seminaries of malcontents and democrats. The luxury and aristocracy of a few well educated rich atheists and deists afford no objection; it is of the low and of the indigent that these schools are formed, of persons who may be rendered the most valuable or the most pernicious part of the community. Homo sum: he is not a man, who can be an enemy to the mental improvement of his fellow creatures. The ignorance of the lower classes is deplorable; it is the moral duty of those in higher stations, it is the noble task of governments to raise them on the scale of intellect; education cannot be too general, but let it be in the true spirit of education. We are creatures, who depend greatly, perhaps wholly, on instruction. We can in general do little of ourselves. We must at first have {250}guides, and, to borrow the pithy expression of the famous bishop of Down, Jeremy Taylor, "if our guides do not put something into our heads, while children, the Devil will." The arts of reading and writing are mere mechanical instruments: to render them a blessing the soul must be fashioned into a spring of thought and action, and it behoves the fashioner to temper it justly. How desirable soever it might be, that the rising generation, enjoying the same constitution, should be united in the same mode of worship, yet, as that blessing seems unattainable in the present state of the world, it would be some consolation, if the various dissenters from the established church would hold themselves bound to insist upon the Christian religion, according to their own views of it, being taught in the new schools; and, I am free to confess, that the dissenting ministers in general are not deficient of zeal in impressing their religious principles on the minds of their followers; and it is but justice to say, that the world at large have been indebted to many of them, to Watts, {251}to Hartley, and to others: nor do I think, that the generality of dissenters can possibly approve of that plan, which, assembling poor children to be taught reading, writing, and figures, sends them to learn the relation between the Creator and his creature, the corruption of human nature, and the means of salvation, in a garret or a cellar, where want and ignorance, or low debauchery, are to be their preceptors. It is a mistaken benevolence, and good men of all communions should deprecate the evil, and resolve to avert it by the establishment of schools where the principal objects of education should be the principal things attended to, that the secondary ones may be made subservent to them; where, while the duties of man to God, to himself, and to society, are inculcated, the scholar may exercise his powers with books and pens to advantage, and without danger to the state. Nor, without previous oral instruction, should the Bible itself be put into the hands of readers, whether children or ignorant adults. Bible societies, consisting, beyond all doubt, of pious {252}men, will diffuse good or evil over the world according to the prudence with which the sacred volumes are distributed. In theology, as in natural philosophy, the uninformed mind cannot, of itself, embrace even the most incontrovertible truths: the raising of the dead and the rotation of the earth are alike incomprehensible; what is not immediately intelligible is not impressive, but when once we have been taught to observe the motion of the heavenly bodies, and are made sensible, that the power, which could assign certainty of operation to nature, must be equal to the suspension of it, astronomy and religion open upon us, and we fly to Newton and the Testament; and, seeing truths unfold themselves, we willingly take much on trust in both; certain that books, where we find so many demonstrations, are not intended to deceive us in any one point, and the resurrection of our Saviour becomes sooner solved than the precession of the equinox.

It is impossible to contemplate the {253}advantages arising to our fellow creatures and to society from Dr. Bell's system of education for the poor, without delight and without grateful feelings to the author, and, I may add, the still active director of it. Thousands upon thousands will bless him, while he yet lives, and a perpetual series of millions will revere his memory after he shall have joined the myriads of spirits from whom he shall himself learn the celestial allelujahs, and those things which it has not entered the mind of man to conceive.

It would be unjust not to pay a tribute of praise, also, to the founders of an institution, who, though dissenting in tenets, have adopted Dr. Bell's plan for a religious education, according to their principles: I allude to the Fitzroy free school for the instruction of six hundred children.

Catholic schools, on a similar plan, have also been established, for the education of the poor children of catholic parents. These are {254}superintended by zealous priests, who give religious instruction gratuitously to the pupils. All such establishments merit encouragement, not only from members of their own communion, but from all, who by influence or wealth are able to aid them.

In making religion the basis of education, no inference can be drawn, that the temporal interests and rights of mankind are to be neglected. Man, born to sorrow, having but a short time to live, is assuredly more concerned in securing an eternal than a temporal happiness; but he is sufficiently long in his transit to render his situation on earth of importance, and the ease and contentment of every individual should be the object of all governments: for this are communities formed, for this are laws made, for this does the sovereign execute the laws, and for this are individuals required to bear and to forbear. Evil must arise, and afflictions must be borne, but that government is the best imagined, and the most wisely administered, {255}by which the large mass of the people are enabled to pass through the years of probation with the greatest comfort, and are presented with opportunities of bettering their conditions and promoting their families. But I do not mean to interweave, here, an essay upon government and civil rights; the contemplation of the admirable system of education among the Jesuits led to these observations on the systems of general education, and in concluding them with expressly stating my opinion of the grand object of national community my view is, to leave no room for attributing the sentiments of loyalty and of religion, which, in such a work as this, have naturally fallen from my pen, to servility or bigotry.

My subject is now come to its close: it is not to be denied, that the restoration of the order of Jesuits has excited alarm; for we already see a new conspiracy formed against it, possessing all the malignity, if not all the talent, or power, of the old one. But who are the persons alarmed? {256}They can be such only as have a similarity of spirit and of views to those of the former enemies of the society (sir John Hippisley nevertheless excepted, whose alarm must have a very different spring); men, who have already dared to warn the clergy of England against instituting schools, in which children are to be instructed in the national religion, because of the hostile feelings which will be excited between them and the children of the anti-church institutions^[94]; jacobinical philosophers, materialists, votaries of reason and eternal sleep, and, perhaps, some clergy, as before, of their own communion, whose interest may be affected, and who have not penetration and virtue enough to see and enjoy the motive and the justice of their restoration to religion and to letters: "ignorance," said Henry IV, in his speech to Harlay before cited, "has always borne a grudge to learning." I trust, however, and believe, that I {257}have proved enough to convince the reader, that the Jesuits have been calumniated; that their destruction was effected by the malice and envy of their enemies, on the one hand, and by the pusillanimity of their proper protector on the other; that, as far as authority extends, there is a great and brilliant balance in their favour; that, on the ground of reasoning, the proof of their virtue as well as of their religion does not fall short of demonstration in the account of their institute; that they are not at war with protestant governments, whose catholic subjects they are well known long to have trained up in loyalty; and, that the small number now in this country have completed those proofs of loyalty by a solemn oath of allegiance to the king.

L E T T E R S

C L E R I C U S.

L E T T E R S

CLERICUS TO LAICUS.

LETTER I.

In God's name, Laicus, who are you, and what is your aim? The order of Jesuits, you tell us, has been totally abolished. Every person {262}of moderate information knows, that to accomplish that abolition, which was not total, all the artifices of calumny were exhausted. Neither Calvin, nor Le Courayer, nor even Laicus, could have added a mite to the torrent of abuse of Jesuits, which inundated Europe about fifty years ago, when the complete overthrow of that order was finally planned and determined. The Jesuits fell; and within a few years Rome was sacked and pillaged; two successive pontiffs were lodged in dungeons; every French infidel, every fanatical gospeller throughout Europe, exulted in the discomfiture of the scarlet whore; the papacy was, on every side, pronounced to be extinct. But, behold, by the unerring operation of Providence, the papacy is again seated on the seven hills, and its old champions, the Jesuits, are once more called forth to sustain the assaults of calumny. But what inept calumny, what {263}falsehoods, what inconsistencies, what contradictions, have you, Laicus, raked together, to stifle the new life, which they are only beginning to enjoy! Thus in days of old conspired the Jewish pharisees to murder Lazarus, as soon as the Son of God had raised him from the tomb.—John xii, 10. Consider, Sir—you need not be so precipitate. Many years must yet pass, many powers must concur, to recruit, to drill, to marshal a new body of Jesuits, capable of achieving the mischief, which your virulent declamation imputes to their predecessors. I have spent some years of my life in foreign countries; I there read every libel against the Jesuits, that came in my way; but I never found one so perfectly contemptible as your two tottering columns in the Times, newspaper, of January the 27th. They will not support either themselves, or the credit of the publication which has received them. And yet this infamous trash must be noticed, because it is calculated to do harm. I say again, who are you? Tell me, if you dare. If you have written truth, why should you skulk {264}from the light? But, alas! Omnis, qui male agit, odit lucem.—John iii, 20.

I need not ask again, what is your aim? Your two columns plainly tell it. It is not to convey information to discerning men; it is to poison the minds of the undiscriminating vulgar; it is to raise a popular cry, which, in this country, has more than once either intimidated virtuous ministers, or favoured the projects of bad ones. There is, you know it, even in this enlightened nation, a mass of fanaticism and bigotry, which may easily be called into action. If you are forty-five years old, you may remember, that, in 1780, one extravagant religionist made the streets stream with blood, and nearly wrapped the capital in flames. If you have read history, you know that the projectors of the exclusion bill found the profligacy of Titus Oates quite sufficient to raise an enormous ferment throughout the nation, and to procure the legal murder of twenty harmless Jesuits, gentlemen and priests. You distinctly disclaim the {265}merit of novelty. Right: you dare not deviate an inch from the old beaten track of inflammatory calumny and defamation. Your whole tale has been long prepared and fashioned to your hands. Nothing in it is yours, but the inconsistencies, contradictions, and scurrilous language, with which you have pieced it together. It is copied from one or more of the ten thousand libels, which overspread Europe fifty years ago, when the confederate ministers of the catholic courts, the Pombals, the Choiseuls, the Arandas, the Tanuccis, the Caunitzes, the Spinellis, the Marefoschis, &c. had finally determined to assassinate the whole body of the Jesuits. I have read almost every word of your two flimsy columns in the old Requisitoires, Comptes Rendus, and Arrêts of the French parliaments, from which I traced it to the Jansenists, to the Calvinists, to the Tuba Magna, to Scioppius, to Hospinian, to the Monarchia Solipsorum, and to the lying Monita Secreta: yet this last is the only one of your foul sources, that you have the hardiness to cite, probably because you know it to be {266}the most malicious. It shall be specially noticed hereafter. Now all this was long ago refuted to the satisfaction of dispassionate men: even many of the French parliamentarians saw cause to regret their own deed. I have heard several of their leading men lament it, and some of them fairly acknowledge the infamy of the slander, which their courts had employed to effect it. Il falloit denigrer les Jesuites; car sans cela, les parlemens n'en seroient jamais venus à bout, were the words used by the late amiable and learned president Des Brosses in my hearing. But you, Sir, are not content to suck in the black bile of the old Gallic magistrates; you emulate the savage cruelty of Nero towards the primitive Christians—you dress up your Jesuits in the semblance of wild beasts, to entice your dogs to devour them.

And could you not, then, see the inconsistency of representing the whole body of Jesuits, as men systematically trained to every vice and crime, and of acknowledging, at the same time, {267}that they governed the consciences of all monarchs, and of all their grandees; that they ruled courts; that they were every where trusted, respected, and employed? They enjoyed this credit during two hundred years, in all catholic countries, and, if we must believe you, in all countries not professedly catholic, that is, in protestant countries; and yet you require us to admit, that all the sovereigns, prelates, and magistrates of those nations, had neither the discernment to discover, nor the power to control the course of their wickedness. Indeed, Sir, the best refutation of your fable would be, a comparison of the state of religion, morality, order, and subordination in catholic countries, while Jesuits, as you tell us, were their teachers, preachers, and directors, with the face of public morals, after their enemies had accomplished their destruction. Another complete refutation of your inconsistent charge arises from the remarkable circumstance, that, in all the countries where Jesuits were consigned to jails, exile, infamy, and beggary, not a crime could be alleged or {268}proved against a single Jesuit; not one was ever interrogated or suffered to plead his cause. Horrid to tell! they were all everywhere condemned, everywhere punished unheard, untried. This is a fact of public notoriety^[96].

It is curious to observe, how your accusations turn to the credit of the Jesuits. The strict obedience, which was enjoined and practised in their society, is with you their crime; with every man of sense, it is their commendation. It was, in fact, the bond, which cemented them together, which supplied the place of monastic restrictions, incompatible with their various duties. Without it, they would soon have fallen into disorder, they would have been contemned; but they would not have been employed, nor trusted, nor even persecuted. {269}Another of their crimes is their ardent attachment to their order. I allow it was singular. They had a tender feeling for the good reputation of their society, and they all well understood, that it depended upon the good conduct of every individual^[97]. But who cannot see, that this {270}admitted fact stands in direct contradiction to that other crimination, where you execrate their government, as perfect and unexampled despotism? It is not possible, that a large body of well educated men should be enamoured of slavery. It is a truth, that the government of the Jesuits was the most gentle, and yet the most effective, that ever existed; and this, if you had sense to comprehend it, arose in a great measure from the perfection of their obedience. Let this suffice for your inconsistencies.

Among your direct falsehoods, I rank your assertion, that their constitutions were framed by Laines and Acquaviva, both generals of the society: that the former was the author of your favourite libel, the Monita Secreta, and that it was brought to light at the end of the seventeenth century. This point shall be resumed. To mention all your falsehoods, I must copy your two columns: but I cannot omit arraigning you as a shameless impostor, for your assertion in Italics, that the Jesuits had obtained from {271}the holy see a special licence to trade. In fact, there never was a more idle calumny, than that Jesuits ruled the papal court, and possessed enormous wealth. It was an object of laughter even with those who re-echoed the tale in the loudest tone. The Jesuits never possessed a single post in the Roman court, to which power and influence were attached. Some of these belonged to more ancient orders; and, in those orders, the Jesuits generally found rivals and opponents. Not having the sources of power, they never possessed any other influence, either at Rome or elsewhere, than that which virtue and abilities occasionally give to individuals.

To these enormous, I would rather say abnormous, misshapen lies, I add, in finishing, your assertion, that the Jesuits took part in every intrigue, in every revolution. You are not ignorant, it seems, that revolutions are always preceded by intrigues. Now, Laicus, you must patiently submit to be branded with the title of SPLENDIDE MENDAX, until you produce {272}undeniable proof, that the Jesuits were concerned in the intrigues, which produced the several revolutions of Denmark, Sweden, and Russia, of the United Provinces in 1570, of Portugal in 1640, of England in the same year, and again in 1688, and, more recently, in the revolution, which wrested the American States from the British crown. I will rub off the splendide mendax from your forehead when you prove, that any one of these revolutions was contrived, or conducted, by Jesuits. It is a remarkable circumstance, that, amidst the fiercest rage of unceasing wars, the two great rival houses of Bourbon and Austria vied with each other in esteem and affection for the Jesuits. During the reigns of Philip II, and his three immediate successors in Spain; during the reigns of Maximilian, of the three Ferdinands, and Leopold, in Germany; during the reigns of Henry IV, and of the three Louises, who succeeded him, in France, the Jesuits obtained their most distinguished settlements in those various kingdoms. If ever a history of the {273}destruction of the Jesuits be written, it will show, that, purposely to bring forward the grand revolution, from which Europe is now struggling to recover, they were expelled from all the situations, in which European monarchs and prelates, the guardians of church and state, had placed them. This is the only revolution, in which Jesuits ought to be named. And here I advise you to meddle no more with this matter. Melius non tangere, clamo. Inquiry, or even chance, may betray your real name. If this happen, I shall add with the poet,

LETTER II.

In my last, I engaged myself to say a word on your Monita Secreta. This rancid libel, indeed, refutes itself. No man of common sense will allow even the possibility of a large body of men being governed, or of attaining credit and power by such absurd maxims, under the inspection of so many powerful princes, wise ministers, and learned prelates. Certainly these lords of church and state could not be so blind, during one hundred and fifty years, as to tolerate, to cherish a gang of thieves, and to intrust to them the public instruction of the people, and the education of youth. Such a set of maxims would not have held together a band of professed forgers or swindlers, during a single {275}year. And the contriver of them, you tell us, was Laines, whom you incautiously allow to have been a man of superior abilities in the science of government. The folly of imputing such trash to Laines must appear evident to all who know, that he was one of the most distinguished divines and preachers of his age; that he was deputed, in three different pontificates, as pontifical theologian to the council of Trent; that his harangues were considered almost as oracular by the fathers of that venerable assembly; that his manners were as saintly as his learning was extensive, that he was specially selected by Pius IV to confute the Hugonots in the conference at Poissy; that, on his return from that embassy, he refused the dignity of cardinal, with which the pope offered to distinguish his eminent merit; and, that he ended his career in 1565, seven years after he had been elected general of the young society. Now, say, what time could a man so busied in theological and missionary labours in Italy and France, command to conduct commercial {276}speculations in India, as you in your odious libel assert?

But alas, why should Laicus spare Laines, when he has dared to blaspheme the great, the renowned Francis Xavier, as a monster of cruelty, as an extortioner of Indian wealth? As if such senseless insult, at the distance of two hundred and sixty years, could disparage the revered merit, or obliterate the tribute of admiration and praise, which mankind have agreed to give him, and which sober protestants have not refused: such are Baldeus and Hackluyt, cited in the wonderful life of that famous apostle, by Bouhours, translated into English by our Dryden.—See p. 766, 767.

The maxims of Xavier and Laines, consigned in your Monita Secreta, were first brought to light, you tell us, at the close of the seventeenth century, about one hundred and forty years after the decease of the supposed author; and yet you have not a shadow of proof to allege, that they {277}made any sensation in the world; that any prince, prelate, or magistrate, that any man whatever gave credit to them. Would you know, Sir, the origin of your despicable Monita? Not in the days of Laines, not at the close, but in the early years of the seventeenth century, a Jesuit was dismissed with ignominy from the society in Poland, an uncommon circumstance but judged due to his misconduct. The walls of the city of Cracow were soon covered with sheets of revengeful insults; and, in the year 1616, this outcast of the society published his fabricated Secreta Monita, with a view to cover his own disgrace, or to gratify his revenge. "Whether he attained either of these objects," says the elegant historian, Cordara (a name well known in the republic of letters), "I cannot determine; but certain it is, nothing was ever more ineptly silly, than this work: Quo opere, ut modeste dicam, nihil ineptius."—Vid. Cordara, Hist. Soc. Jes. page 29. Cordara would have made an exception in favour of Laicus, if he had lived to read {278}his Letters in the Times. The libel, however, though condemned and prohibited at Rome by the Congregation of the Index on the 10th of May, 1616, was industriously propagated, meeting every where its merited contempt. It was victoriously refuted by Gretser, who died in 1625, seventy-five years before the work was discovered, if the admirable Laicus is to be believed. This refutation, which was not wanted, may be read in Gretser's works, edit. of Ratisbon, 1634^[98].

Laicus affirms, that an edition of the Monita was dedicated to sir Robert Walpole in 1722. Though every assertion of such a writer may be doubted, yet, admitting the truth of this, which I cannot disprove, a probable reason for it may, I think, be assigned. From the period of the accession of the {280}House of Hanover, in 1714, a negotiation had been on foot for the repeal of the penal laws. It miscarried, principally from the still subsisting attachment to the House of Stuart, and partly from the enmity openly professed against the Jesuit missionaries by a small number of catholics, priests and laymen, who insisted, that they should be excepted from the expected act of grace. During the first years of George I, several angry libels and invectives were industriously circulated, purposely to indispose the public against them; and it is observable, that the same jealousy and party rancour had influenced the negotiations instituted in favour of catholics in the reign of Charles II, and even during the usurpation of Cromwell. The edition of Laicus's cherished libel, in 1722, if it be a reality, was probably published on the same principles; and this reflection will soon lead me to detect the ultimate view of Laicus and his associates in the present effusions of slander, which they are scattering abroad. This point may be reserved for future examination. {281}

It is not possible to dwell upon all the wilful falsehoods of the second Letter, with the same extent which I have given to the fable of the Monita. The power of the general of the Jesuits is nicely ascertained in the volumes of the Institute; and, indeed, a true account of it cannot be drawn from any other source. Now I assert, that every word written upon it in the Institute, stands directly in contradiction to your description of it in your second Letter. It was said of an ancient painter, Nulla dies sine linea: I say of your wild rant, Nulla linea sine mendacio. In the books of the Institute, the general's power is balanced and checked in a stile, that has been admired by the deepest men in the science of legislation, cardinal Richelieu and others; and all this has been repeatedly sanctioned, confirmed, and extolled by popes, who, according to you, were at once governed and opposed, ruled and thwarted, overswayed and disobeyed, and sometimes murdered by Jesuits. What idiots these popes must have been! In what chapter of the Institute did {282}Laicus discover the power or the practice of admitting men of all religions into the society? Could men, of various religious persuasions have ever coalesced into one regular system of propagating exclusively the Roman catholic religion, which, as well as persecution of protestants and their own aggrandisement, you allow to have been at all times the main object of Jesuits? Who can believe, that protestant Jesuits would ever have submitted to persecute protestants? Who can imagine unanimity of mind, heart, and action among men, who disagreed in the fundamental principle? In what historian, or in what tradition, has Laicus found, that pope Innocent XIII was murdered, or murdered by Jesuits? Strange, that the discovery of such a crime should have been reserved for Laicus, ninety-one years after the death of that pontiff^[99]! Who, before Laicus, ever wrote, {283}that the assassin of Henry III of France was instigated by Jesuits? Wait another number of the Times, Laicus will improve: he will roundly assure us, that the miserable Jacques Clement actually was a Jesuit. No man conversant in the history of France ever doubted of the civil wars of the sixteenth century having originated with the rebellious Hugonots; but no man before Laicus ever attributed all the horrors of that dismal period to Jesuits. The famous league opposed the succession of the Bourbons in the person of {284}Henry IV; and the whole guilt of their proceedings against Henry IV is exclusively ascribed to Jesuits. And yet this very monarch, whom Laicus calls the greatest and best king of France, was perhaps, of all men that ever wore a crown, the warmest friend and protector of the Jesuits. Possibly I may be wrong in this assertion; because the glory of Henry IV, in this particular, is certainly rivalled, if not exceeded, by the illustrious favour and protection afforded to the persecuted Jesuists by the late empress Catharine of Russia, and by the present magnanimous emperor Alexander. Henry IV condescended to refute in public the passionate imputations of the president Harlay against the Jesuits. His son, Louis XIII, and his grandson, the famous Louis XIV, imitated his example, in their esteem of the society; and because this was undeniable, behold Laicus, by a bold effort of genius, has transformed the renowned monarch, Louis XIV, into a Jesuit professed of four vows. How a Frenchman must scout such ribaldry! But enough of these extravagancies. {285}In reading them, I began to suspect, that Laicus's aim might be to ridicule the revilers of Jesuits, by imputing to the latter things evidently false, clearly inconsistent, absolutely impossible. Thus, I well remember it, when the absurd tale of the Jesuit king Nicolas of Paraguay amused the Laicuses of the day, the writer of one of the Holland gazettes, in his description of that king's battle against the Spanish and Portuguese troops, endeavoured to turn the fable into ridicule by asserting, that king Nicolas had displayed much bravery, and had fought until three capuchins were shot under him in the action. But I apprehend, that Laicus and his prompters do not rave merely for sport. Their real views will gradually appear: they are not quite unknown to

LETTER III.

At the close of your first Letter, you promise to refer, in your next, to the evidences for the statements, which you have made. I was curious to see upon what historical evidence such a mass of forgeries could rest. In labouring through your second Letter, I discovered much intrinsic evidence, that you are a still improving adept in the art of bold and unsupported assertion, but not a shadow of proof, that your rants were ever believed by any man before yourself. The only authority cited in it is of one Collado, who asserted, that the conduct of the Jesuits was the occasion of the abolition of Christianity in Japan; but whoever has read the history of {287}Christianity in those islands will deny the position, upon grounds more certain than those on which it is advanced. The whole of your second Letter is no more than an unconnected congeries of the grossest impostures. In my second I marked out a few; I shall presently indicate some others; and I shall leave my readers to determine, whether you have substantiated your first calumnies, only by the production of new ones.

I have searched your third Letter in quest of evidence, of proof, of historical support; and I find, that the two most prominent names in it are Prynne and De Thou. I may here remark, that it is highly illiberal and unjust to uphold imputations of guilt, even against the worst of culprits, solely upon the asseverations of their declared enemies; and, if these enemies stand otherwise convicted of malicious calumnies, this circumstance alone must go far towards the acquittal of the accused. Now, it is well known, {288}that Prynne and De Thou wrote in the most turbulent times, amidst the distractions and rage of civil wars, occasioned in England and in France by restless sectaries; that they were both inflamed with party rage, and never spared their adversaries. If, then, their testimony is to be admitted as irrefragable, in the present times, in one point, why not in another? If, without a shadow of proof, we must believe with Prynne and you, that the Irish massacre and the British civil wars were to be imputed to Jesuits, and especially to Cuneus, the pope's nuncio, and cardinal Barberini (who, by the way, never were Jesuits), we must also believe every thing written by that foul mouthed lawyer against Charles I, against episcopacy, and against the famous archbishop Laud. But we know, that the fellow's ears were twice bored and cropped in the pillory for his defamatory libels, and that his cheeks were seared with the letters S. L. (seditious libeller.) I believe my readers will agree, that the stigma might, with propriety, be transferred to the unblushing front of the retailer of his falsehoods. {289}Before I speak of De Thou, I will mention only a few of your insufferable fabrications, which hardly Prynne himself would have ventured to utter. 1. "In matters both of faith and practice, the members of the society are bound to obey the society, and not the church^[100]." In what part of their Institute is this canon found? It was unknown to the council of Trent, and to the several popes, whose confirmation and commendation that Institute obtained. 2. "They have invariably opposed episcopacy, and they have repeatedly attacked the decrees of general councils, especially that of Trent^[101]." It should seem, that, in a protestant country, attacks upon catholic councils would not be deemed very enormous sins. But, since they have been repeatedly committed by Jesuits, it would have been easy for Laicus to convict them, at least, in one instance. Why has it been omitted? 3. "The society has prisons, {290}independent of secular authority, in which refractory members are put to death; a right which Laines obtained for them^[102]." Quere, from whom did he obtain it? From the pope? In what bullarium then may the grant be found? Did Jesuits ever attempt to use this right? Did secular sovereigns quietly acquiesce in such a glaring usurpation of their most undoubted right? Of what avail could such a privilege have been to the Jesuits, who always had the power to dismiss refractory members from their society, as they dismissed Jerom Zarowicz, Antonio de Dominis, abbé Raynal, and many others? Poor Laicus cannot answer one of these questions. He has disclaimed all pretension to novelty; he is satisfied with copying malignity; and, to the shame of the Encyclopedia Britannica, he has transcribed this impudent forgery from vol. ix of that work (page 510, art. Laines), where, without a shadow of proof or of probability, it is roundly stated, that "Laines, {291}general of the Jesuits, procured from pope Paul IV the privilege of having prisons independent of the secular authority, in which they (the Jesuits) put to death refractory brethren." 4. "One peculiar object of the society is to direct and aid the operations of the Inquisition^[103]." It is not easy to ascertain the precise source of this falsehood. Probably it is not borrowed from foreign libels, because, in all catholic countries, it was universally known, that Jesuits never had any concern in the administration, or proceedings, of the Inquisition. 5. "The Jesuits usurped the sovereignty of Paraguay, and held the Indians in slavery^[104]." This has been a thousand times said; and it has been as often demonstrated, to the satisfaction of impartial inquirers, that the Jesuits were the steady friends and defenders of the liberty of the Indians, and that the success of their missions in South America was a glorious triumph of {292}humanity and religion, hardly to be equalled in the history of the Christian church. 6. "They formed two conspiracies against king Joseph of Portugal, and his whole family^[105]." In spite of the prepotency of the cruel minister Pombal, truth has prevailed, and the world remains convinced, that not even one conspiracy was ever formed against king Joseph of Portugal, either by Jesuits, or by any other persons. 7. "The Jesuits beheaded eighty Frenchmen and hung five hundred friars for maintaining the rights of Anthony king of Portugal, in the island of Tercera, where they had compelled him to take refuge, after having disposed of his crown^[106]." All this is a blundering confusion of the adventures of the bastard Portuguese prince Antonio, prior of Crato, and of the history of king Alfonso, who, a hundred years later, was deposed and confined in the island of Tercera. Whoever has looked into Portuguese {293}history may remember, that Antonio's pretensions to the crown were settled, not by Jesuits, but by the duke of Alva, at the head of a Spanish army of twenty thousand men. He may have read, that several persons were executed in Tercera, for supporting Antonio's cause, by the commanders of a Spanish armament; but no man has read, that five hundred friars were put to death, or ever existed at one time, in the island of Tercera. Whatever the case may be, the Jesuits had no concern in what befel the pretender Antonio, or king Alfonso, or the poor friars of Tercera. 8. "The Jesuits deposed the grand duke of Muscovy with great bloodshed, for a creature of their own^[107]." When did all this happen, and who was the grand duke? Laicus will not easily answer these questions. 9. "A memoir of cardinal Noailles leaves no doubt of Louis XIV having taken the four vows of the Jesuits^[108]." On this {294}point the policy of the Jesuits appears to have been defective. If they had sent good father Louis XIV to a foreign mission, for instance, to Canada or Brazil, in execution of his fourth vow, and had bestowed his crown upon some other creature of their own, as they had transferred that of poor king Anthony, probably they might have ruled Europe with less trouble. Father Louis XIV was not always disposed to be a submissive subject^[109].

I mention two facts more, because they are new—not related by Prynne, nor even by the {295}learned writer of the historical articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, whose words, in his article "Jesuits," you have so exactly copied into your Letters. 10. "Pope Urban VIII," you say, "transmitted a bull to the Jesuits' vice-provincial, Stillington, commanding all catholics to be aiding in the civil war, for which they should receive indulgences, such as power of releasing others from purgatory, and of eating fish at prohibited times, and if he should be killed, of being placed in the Martyrology^[110]." The gross absurdity of this narration is evident without a comment^[111]. The other is still more extraordinary. 11. You invite us to consult "the important memorial presented by Parsons the Jesuit, to king James II, for bringing in popery^[112]." This Parsons is a most {296}wonderful Jesuit. You have already sported him as the associate of Campion to assassinate queen Bess in 1581, that is, one hundred and four years before James II became king of England; and it is very certain, that he died and was fairly buried at Rome, in the month of April, 1610; that is, twenty-three years before king James II was born. I omit many other Jesuitical pranks, which you allege, relative to English history, because every reader may find the refutation of them, only by looking into Dr. Milner's celebrated Letters to Dr. Sturges, where the profligacy of Elizabeth and her ministers, and the futility of the assassination-plots, with which they charged Jesuits and other priests, are evinced to demonstration. It is now time to think of De Thou.

This writer's character is well drawn by the learned professor of Lovain, Dr. Paquot:—Thuanus audax nimium; hostis Jesuitarum imcabilis; calumniator Guisiorum; protestantium exscriptor, laudator, amicus; sedi apostolicæ et {297}synodo Tridentinæ, totique rei catholicæ parum æquus. De Thou was fully animated with the general and prevalent spirit of the parliament of Paris, in which he held the rank of president a mortier; and this spirit led them at all times to advance their own importance, by favouring every party that opposed either the church or the crown. Their constant aim was to balance the power of the monarch, and to depress the spiritual authority of the holy see and the bishops. During the active administration of Louis XIV, they were confined to their proper functions of civil and criminal justice; but in the times, which preceded and followed that reign, they were leaguers, and favourers of the Hugonots, and abettors of the Fronde, and, lastly, open protectors of the Jansenists. De Thou never publicly seceded from the catholic church; he was satisfied with insulting it. His abilities were great; the elegance of his style is engaging: but, as he wrote solely to favour the Hugonots, his narrations are compiled only upon their memoirs, or they are sports of his own {298}imagination. He professes to write the history only of his own times; and, consequently, his story rests upon his own credit, unsupported by vouchers: his ipse dixit is the whole proof. He is wonderfully fond of detailing conspiracies against princes, and, in these fabulous tales, he completely sacrifices the dignity of the historian; he sinks into a romancer and a comedian. He leads his conspirator through cities and provinces, to gather associates; the pope, or the king of Spain, or some cardinal, directs the plot; he has at his finger-ends the closest secrets of the conspiracy; he recites letters, which were never written; and, most commonly, Jesuits, but sometimes Dominicans, even Capuchins, are his principal actors. These men give anticipated absolution to the assassin; they promise him the crown and palm of martyrdom; they impart to him the pope's benediction; and, to use your odious cant, they give him the sacrament upon it. All this is sweet reading to bigoted sectaries; and, with them, the word of De Thou is paramount to demonstrative proof. {299}

I have sketched De Thou's character, because he stands foremost among the modern corrupters of history, too successfully followed by Voltaire, by Hume, by Robertson, and a throng of servile imitators in France and in England, whose historical romances have so much contributed to render religion odious, and to plunge mankind into scepticism and infidelity.

Having already mentioned the writer of the historical and biographical articles in the Encyclopedia Britannica, I here recommend to Laicus to cultivate a more intimate correspondence with that accurate compiler, if he be still engaged in historical pursuits. They will thus reciprocally gather improvement by communication of their respective discoveries; they will mutually support each other, and advance the common cause in which they are engaged. How strange it is, that the historian of the Encyclopedia, so well informed of whatever concerns Jesuits, should not have known, that Louis XIV was a professed member of that order, bound by four solemn {300}vows; viz. of voluntary poverty, perpetual chastity, and entire obedience to the general of the society in all things, and likewise to the pope with respect to foreign missions! Surely he would have enriched the Encyclopedia with this prominent fact, so undoubtedly ascertained by Laicus and cardinal de Noailles. How strange again it is, that the penetrating Laicus should have been ignorant, that this very Louis XIV, this professed Jesuit, so far forgot the humility of his religious profession, as to arrogate to himself the worship and honours, which religion appropriates to the Divinity! And yet this important fact, which had escaped all the writers of that royal Jesuit's life, is consigned to posterity for an historical truth, in the seventh volume of the Encyclopedia Britannica, page 432, in the following words: "He (Louis XIV) was so blinded by flattery, that he arrogated to himself the divine honours, paid to the pagan emperors of Rome." The circulation of this fact by Laicus, would at one stroke have crushed the Jesuits, and would have conciliated immortal {301}honour and credit to the Times. Who can contemplate the historical labours of these three worthies, the historian of the Encyclopedia, the editor of the Times, and the incomparable Laicus, without thinking of the fate of their predecessor Prynne?

It is remarkable, that while the Jesuits were thus insulted by Prynnes and De Thous, and their numerous disciples, they were everywhere befriended by princes and states, who freighted them to foreign missions at the public expense, and who multiplied their colleges and settlements throughout Europe, in which they quietly assisted the clergy in the functions of religion, and successfully conducted those schools, which our famous Bacon so much admired: Consule scholas Jesuitarum, is his well known text; nihil enim quod in usum venit, his melius.—De dign. et augm. Scient. l. 6. He had already said (l. 1) of the Jesuits, "Quorum cum intueor industriam solertiamque, tam in doctrina excolenda, quam in moribus informandis, illud {302}occurrit Agesilai de Pharnabaso: Talis cum sis, utinam nostor esses."

The testimony of Bacon overbalances ten thousand Encyclopedists, and all their servile transcribers. To cover them with confusion, I finish with citing two of the most celebrated names, that have ever graced any of the various sects, known by the common appellation of protestants—I mean the great Grotius and Leibnitz. The latter maintained a constant correspondence with Jesuits, even with the missioners in China. His letters, which yet exist, prove that he was, and that he gloried in being, their friend; that he rejoiced in their successes, and was grieved by their afflictions and sufferings. The Latin text, which I would wish to transcribe from the learned Grotius, is rather long, and it would be enervated by translation. (See Grotius Hist. 1. iii, p. 273. edit. Amstelod. an. 1658.) Here he employs the nervous style of Tacitus, to describe the origin of the Jesuits, the purity of their morals, their zeal to propagate {303}Christianity, to instruct youth, the respect which they had justly acquired, their disinterestedness, their prudence in commanding, their fidelity in obeying, their moderation in all their dealings, their progress and increase, &c. &c. "Mores inculpatos, bonas artes, magna in vulgum auctoritas ob vitæ sanctimoniam.—Sapienter imperant, fideliter parent.—Novissimi omnium, sectas priores fama vicere, hoc ipso cæteris invisi.—Medii fœdum inter obsequium et tristem arrogantiam, nec fugiunt hominum vitia, nec sequuntur, &c."

LETTER IV.

What! Laicus once more! And is he not then prostrate on the ground, gagged and muzzled beyond the possibility of barking? His ignorance, his falsehoods, his sophistry, have been sufficiently branded; yet, spider-like,

Undoubtedly he never deserved, and never would have received even a first answer, if it had not been apparent, that his venal pen was guided and paid by mischief-makers of deeper views: and hence arises the necessity of noticing this fourth effusion, to disable the retailers of {305}his falsehoods from vainly boasting, that slander unanswered is acknowledged truth. I write not to Laicus, but to his prompters, and to his readers, if there be any left.

They may observe, that the imputations in this fourth Letter are two—king-killing continually practised, and immoral doctrines continually taught by Jesuits: and to this is added a short summary of authorities, by which all this trash is upheld. It would be an easy, but now uninteresting task, to disprove these several imputations; and this has long since been victoriously done. It may suffice to know, that they were all advanced by party men, maddened by civil and religious rage: they are registered only in the murky pages of antiquated libels, and they are here reproduced for the dishonest purpose of blackening virtue, which triumphed over them, when they were fresh. Pamphlets of Hugonots, libels of loose catholics, declamations of rival teachers, who apprehended their own humiliation in the success of the Jesuits, Plaidoyers, {306}Requisitoires, and harangues of Pasquiers and Harlays, sworn enemies of the society, Arrêts of their courts of parliament, ever intent to curtail the spiritual authority of the church, and to abridge the power of the reigning monarch, in order to advance their own. Such are the men, such the passions, which invented accusations of regicide against the Jesuits in France during the horrid confusion of the Hugonotic wars. At the return of public tranquillity, they all sunk into oblivion during the period of one hundred and fifty years, until Jansenism and Deism renewed them, in 1760, and the ensuing years, as a powerful engine to accomplish the utter destruction of their known and common enemies. It is needless to disprove each imputed fact: I will only, for a sample, refute the first, which stands in Laicus's foul calendar. It is the assertion, that the Jesuit Varade was implicated in the guilt of the assassins of Henry IV, Barriere and Chatel. Now Varade was defended and cleared by an advocate, to whom no reply could be made: this was Henry IV himself, who, in his famous answer to the parliamentary president {307}Harlay, vindicated the honour and the innocence of that Jesuit and of all his associates, in a strain of eloquence, which Harlay and his coadjutors felt to be irresistible. The royal orator concluded his victorious defence of his friends, by advising all his hearers to forget the past excesses of civil discord, and not to exasperate smothered passions, by mutual reproaches, into new crimes. The employers of Laicus would do well to follow this advice.

Though Henry IV was not the model of a perfect king, I have always thought his conduct towards the Jesuits a strong proof, that his return to the religion of his forefathers was sincere. The parliament, which had opposed him, while he headed the Hugonot party, opposed him now from the motives above alleged, and determined to deprive him of the services of the Jesuits, on whom they knew that he greatly depended, for the re-establishment of the catholic religion. They drove the Jesuits from France with every mark of ignominy, before Henry was strong enough to support them. When {308}his power was consolidated, he restored them to their country, and he chose one of them for his preacher, confessor, and bosom friend. This was the celebrated father Cotton, whom Laicus impudently names in his list of Jesuit regicides. In such rage of faction, it is no wonder that the parliament erected a pillar to the infamy of the persecuted Jesuits. It was not quite so tall as the British monument, which still attests to the heavens, in the words of the lord mayor, Patience Ward, that the city of London was burnt by the malice of the catholics, in 1666. The difference is, that in calmer times the Gallic column, with all the calumnies of Harlay, was erased, but Patience Ward, who had been put into the pillory for perjury, still lies uncontradicted^[113]. To the article of regicides I add, that {309}the attempt on the life of Louis XV, in 1757, was not imputed to Jesuits, either by parliaments, or by Jansenists. The calumny in the fourth Letter is, I imagine, the undisputed property of Laicus or his prompters^[114].

On the second head of accusation—immoral doctrine—I wish to be short. The purity of the Jesuits' doctrine and morals was solemnly attested by the most qualified judges, a special assembly of fifty cardinals, archbishops, and bishops, of the Gallic church, convened by Louis XV; and their report was confirmed by many other prelates, who were not deputed to that assembly. A stronger proof of their innocence was the absolute inability of their enemies to convict a single Jesuit of four thousand, who were spread through France, of any immoral principle, doctrine, or practice. The parliament still pursued their beaten track. Il faut denigrer les Jesuites was their maxim. Envy, with her hundred jaundiced eyes, was every where on the watch to discover a flaw. Malice, with her hundred envenomed tongues, stood ready to echo it through the globe. Fruitless industry! {311}The poor parliament was reduced to spare the living Jesuits, not from any regard for truth, but because they knew, that their calumnies would not be believed. They therefore impeached the doctrine and morals of all deceased Jesuits, who had existed during two hundred years, and they intrusted the delicious task of blackening the dead to the impure pens of Jansenists, headed principally by Dom. Clemencet. From this man's foul laboratory proceeded the Extraits des Assertions, a monstrous compilation of forged and falsified texts, purporting to contain the uniform doctrine, taught invariably at all times by the whole society of Jesus, and to exhibit a fair picture of their morals. The parliament sanctioned, and addressed this abominable book to every bishop, and to every college in France. Every bishop in France felt himself and religion insulted by it; and almost every bishop condemned and forbade it to be kept or read. The celebrated archbishop of Paris, De Beaumont, in particular, demonstrated the forgeries and artful falsifications, which it contained, and it was moreover solidly refuted by La Reponse aux {312}Assertions. This laboured piece of Jansenistical malice seems to be unknown to Laicus and his associates, though he has copied and cited several of the vile libels, which were industriously circulated, to convey the indecent impurities of the book Des Assertions to every corner of France. In this point the shameless Laicus has faithfully imitated his models, or rather he has confined himself to one, whom he calls Coudrette; and, with his usual effrontery, he turns this obscure man into a repentant Jesuit, acknowledging and expiating his crimes by an unreserved confession of their foulness. His magic pen has already changed into Jesuits three such perfect disparates, as Louis XIV, the miserable Jacques Clement, and the weak English archpriest Blackwell. It has, upon motives equally invidious, transformed to Jesuits two churchmen of the first rate merit, the cardinals Allen and Barberini, because these two prelates were, at different periods, concerned in the religious affairs of England, and were thereby obnoxious to the then prevailing sects, though neither of them had any other connexion with Jesuits, than the {313}intercourse of friendship and esteem. But Coudrette a Jesuit! How can this be credited? New personages in comedies are introduced to excite new interest; and was Coudrette ever before named in this island? Indeed his name is so very obscure, that it is difficult to find, even a Frenchman, who ever heard it. It has however obtained a small niche in two French historical dictionaries, the first of which, par une societé des gens-de-lettres, though friendly to the Jansenists, styles Coudrette un ennemi acharné des Jesuits. The other, by the well known abbé Feller, a man of very general information, asserts, that Coudrette had been from his youth, de tres bonne heure, a violent partisan of Jansenism, closely connected with the abbé Boursier, one of the heroes of the sect. In 1735 and 1738, during the ministry of cardinal de Fleury, he was confined by a lettre de cachet first at Vincennes, then in the Bastille, for his intrigues, cabals, and libels against the church; and of course he was canonized as a saint in the Nouvelles Ecclesiastiques, the well known {314}Jansenistical gazette. When the parliaments denounced open war against the Jesuits, he came forward a volunteer in the cause, and printed his Histoire general des Jesuites in the course of 1761: but Coudrette and his history were perfectly forgotten in France before 1762. How could a copy of it have escaped into England? It has found its proper repository on the shelves of Laicus, or his employer^[115].

I have done with Laicus and his authorities. He promises a commentary upon his own performance. It has not, I believe, yet appeared, {315}even in the Times. Mine shall be very short.

Though I have proved Laicus and his associates to be unprincipled impostors, I have said nothing of them and their assertions, but what every man of virtue and information knows to be true. Every prince, every observer knows, that the overthrow of the society of Jesus was the first link in the concatenation of causes, which produced the late horrible successes of rebellion and infidelity. They all know, that the Jesuits, when their body was intire, were among the most active supporters of religion, learning, good order, and subordination to established powers, though, perhaps, professing religious creeds different from their own. Above all, they know, that Jesuits were every where staunch and steady friends of monarchy. Who then will wonder, that the renowned Catherine of Russia protected them in their greatest distress, unbendingly maintaining the full integrity of their institute, even in the smallest points? Who will be {316}surprised, that the heroic Alexander continues to distinguish them by fresh favours? Who will cavil at Pius VII, in this new dawn of public tranquillity, for his endeavours to recover their services? Who will blame other princes for imitating his example? Possibly the good pontiff may conceive himself more bound than other princes, to make some compensation to the few remaining Jesuits, because he was a witness of the aggravated cruelties inflicted upon them and their superiors, at the time of the suppression by his predecessor Clement XIV. But the motives and the conduct of these princes present matter too ample to be treated at present by

LETTER V.

I might spare myself the trouble of answering your fifth, concluding Letter, because I believe it will be read by few, and credited by none. You seem afraid of being called an alarmist. Good Sir, be easy. No man of common information, or of common sense, will catch the alarm of danger from your pretended conclusions. Your impotent cries of danger to church and state are like the cries of a madman, who should scream out "Fire, Fire," in the midst of a deluge^[116]. Thus, even if your {318}pretended conclusions descended in a right order of logic from your premises, the slightest view of the present state of things would convince every thinking man of the inutility of taking precautions, where no danger can possibly exist. But what must every thinking man conclude, when he knows, that your miserable inferences descend from a mass of forgeries, calumnies, imputations equally groundless and malicious; when he traces them up to a string of gratuitous suppositions, wantonly assumed and totally devoid of proof? If he has looked into my four Letters, he has recoiled with disgust from that sink of ribaldry, inconsistency, contradiction, and falsehood, which provoked them; and he has said, that though Clericus has swept away only a part of the dirt, which you have collected, he has sufficiently showed, that the rest, which he has left untouched, is equally odious and noisome. In fact, upon a slight review of your audacious criminations, I cannot discover even one, which is supported by truth; no, not one, which I would not undertake to brand with the stigma of falsehood. {319}

And what then can engage me to meddle with your final observations and inferences? Certainly not the apprehension, that men of sense and knowledge will ever acquiesce in them; but because they are all intended to feed some of the worst passions, that canker the human heart, to gratify disappointed anger, fretful jealousy, and revengeful spite. That these sour passions are apt to rankle in narrow hearts is not a novelty. I have caught them, in late years, venting themselves against your enemies the Jesuits, through newspapers and other prints, in tales nearly as absurd and fictitious, as was the alarming story in the reign of Charles II, of thirty thousand pilgrims and lay brothers, embodied at St. Andero, ready to invade old England under the conduct of the general of the Jesuits. Now your monstrous stories coming upon the back of these fables, must lead every man of sense to conclude, that not the consideration of public security, but the accomplishment of some private view must have prompted this wantonness of slander. But {320}supposing for an instant, that all and each of your random accusations of ancient Jesuits were as true, as all and each are undeniably false; allowing that your columns in the Times could arrest a reader, unacquainted with continental history, in a state of hesitation and doubt; yet he must at least say: "These bad men, like the ancient giants, have been exterminated, they have long since disappeared, we have survived their criminal practices, why is the alarm bell sounded in the present times?"—"But," cries Laicus, "there once was a body of English Jesuits, and, during the whole term of their existence, 'our fathers spent restless nights and uneasy days. Dr. Sherlocke, living under dread of popery and arbitrary power, could enjoy no repose, when every morning threatened to usher in the last dawn of England's liberty.' I trust this quotation will not be without its use^[117]." "Yes, these English Jesuits laid upon us 'a yoke, which was too heavy for {321}our fathers to bear,' and the pope is again trying to fasten it upon our shoulders." &c.^[118]

I allow it, Sir; there formerly existed a body of English Jesuits. It was violently crushed and annihilated more than forty years ago. I look in vain for the yoke, which they imposed upon our fathers: I have read something of the yoke, which they themselves bore. It is described in letters of blood, in the penal statutes of Elizabeth and the first James. During a full century, half the gibbets of England witnessed the unrelenting severity of persecution, which these injured men quietly and meekly endured. They were a body of catholic priests, always esteemed and cherished by English catholics; and, at every period of their existence, they counted in their society many members of the best and most ancient families among the British gentry. They risked their lives by treading on their native soil. They devoted themselves to {322}administer the comforts of religion in secret to their suffering brethren; and they then slunk back to their hiding holes in the hollows of walls and roofs of houses. They never possessed a single house, school, or chapel, in which they could recommend themselves to their countrymen, by the peaceable functions of their profession: they were never otherwise known to the British public than when, surprised by priest-catchers, they were dragged to jail, and from jail to the gallows. Thus lived the Jesuits, in this their free country, from the twenty-second year of Elizabeth to the thirtieth of Charles II. This is all the progress that they made, in a full century, towards their own aggrandizement, which, says Laicus, "is the main object of all their labours^[119]."

When the scene of blood was finally closed, in 1680, by the execution of eight innocent Jesuits in one year, not to mention a dozen {323}others, who died in jail, many of them under sentence of death, the Jesuits still remained an inoffensive body of catholic missionary priests. Their object was to assist their catholic brethren; and, having obtained some foundations from the liberality of foreign potentates, they applied themselves to give to the expatriated youth of their own country the education, which the partiality of the laws denied them at home. In these pacific occupations they persevered, without experiencing any jealousy on the part of government, even during the two rebellions of 1715 and 1745; because, since the accession of the House of Brunswick, it has been a principle with our monarchs never to persecute any man for conscience, never to harass inoffensive subjects.

At the present day, that royal principle, with all its consequences, and they extend far, is widely diffused throughout the empire. Every man in it acknowledges the impossibility of converting the millions of his majesty's catholic subjects to any other assignable mode of faith; {324}and every thinking man must feel the importance and, at the present day, the necessity, of attaching these millions to the common cause of the empire, and to the cordial support of one common government. Sound policy will always forbear to sour and to fret subjects, by jealous suspicions and invidious distinctions. It will always incline wise rulers of states to provide, for their subjects, ministers of religion, who are firmly attached to their government, and who may feel that they have nothing to fear from it, while they do not provoke its sword. Such was the conduct of continental governments in past times; and they everywhere judged it prudent to intrust, in a great measure, the national education of their youth to the active order of Jesuits, who, at the same time, were preachers, and catechists, and confessors, and visitors of hospitals and prisons; and who always had in reserve a surplus of apostles, armed with a cross and a breviary, ready to fly to every point of the heavens, to the extremities of the globe, to create in the wilds of America and Asia new {325}empires for the God of the Gospel, new nations of subjects for France, Portugal, and Spain. The political services rendered by Jesuits to those crowns have often been acknowledged; yet, alas! how have they been requited? When the venerable missioners of the society of Jesuits were dragooned out of Portuguese and Spanish America, the loss of millions of Indians, whom they had civilized, nay, the loss of the territorial possession was loudly predicted to those misguided courts. The first part of the prediction has long since been fulfilled. All the power of France, Spain, and Portugal, could not replace the old tried missioners of Canada, California, Cinaloa, Mexico, Maragnon, Peru, Chili, and Paraguay. The Jesuits were destroyed; the civilized natives, deprived of their protectors, disbanded, and relapsed into barbarism.

Equally impotent and unavailing was all the mighty power of France, Spain, Portugal, and Austria to fill the void, left by the discarded Jesuits, in the quiet ministry of schools at home. {326}Cast a retrospect on the former state of Europe. There were, in all considerable towns, colleges of Jesuits, now, alas! struck to ruins, in which gratuitous education was given. They were temples, in which the language of religion hallowed the language of the Muses. They were seminaries where future senators, magistrates and officers, prelates, priests, and cenobites, &c., received their first, that is, the most important part of education. Not even an attempt was made to supply the room of the ejected instructors, excepting, perhaps, for form sake, in a few great cities; and here what a woful substitution! The Jesuits of Clermont college, in Paris, had, for two hundred years, quietly instructed and trained the flower of the French nobility, to religion, patriotism, and letters. Within a few years after the expulsion of the old masters, Clermont college vomited forth, from its precincts into France, Robespierre, and Camille des Moulins, and Tallien, and Noel, and Freron, and Chenier des Bois, and Porion, and De Pin, and other {327}sanguinary demagogues of that execrable period; names of monsters, now consigned to everlasting infamy. The game was, indeed, by this time, carried rather farther than the Pombals, the Choiseuls, the Arandas, and others, who had planned the ruin of the Jesuits, had either designed or foreseen; but the mound was thrown down, and how could the torrent be withstood?

What thinking man shall now wonder, that the much tried pontiff, Pius VII, having, during his captivity, seriously pondered the connexion of causes and effects, should wish to retrieve the ancient order of things, should even hasten to second the wishes and requests of his fellow sufferers—I mean the surviving princes and prelates, who so sorely rue the mistakes of their immediate predecessors? It is very remarkable, that the false policy of these latter was first discerned and publicly disapproved by two acute sovereigns, who were not of the Roman communion, the magnanimous Catherine of {328}Russia, and the far famed Frederic III, of Prussia. These sovereigns were not ignorant of the various artifices, which had distorted the good sense of the catholic princes. They knew how to elude and disappoint them, when they were practised upon themselves. The empress Catherine especially, in despite of Rome, Versailles, Lisbon, and Madrid, maintained, with a resolute and strong hand, the several houses of Jesuits, which she found in her new Polish dominions; she would not suffer even the smallest alteration to be made, in any of their statutes or practices. Her two successors have settled them in their capital, and in other parts of their empire; and at this day, the glorious Alexander, far from mistrusting those fathers, openly cherishes and favours them, at once as blameless ministers of the catholic religion, and as trusty servants of government, earnestly labouring to endear the new sceptre of the czars to the catholic Poles, lately united to their empire^[120].

Most undoubtedly, next to the purity of religion, the best and dearest interest of the Jesuits always was, and always must be, public tranquillity, order, and subordination of ranks. In tumults and confusion, they must unavoidably be sacrificed. To favour the daring projects of civil and religious innovators, their body was devoted to destruction; and the extinction of it was presently followed by the universal uproar of the Gallic revolution. Hence their name is odious to Buonaparte. In his progress through Germany, he drove them from Ausburg, and Friburg, and other towns, where the magistrates and inhabitants had succeeded to preserve a small remnant of their body, though without hope of perpetuating it by succession. In 1805 the court of Naples, convinced of its past error, reinstated the Jesuits, to the universal joy of the capital; and immediately Napoleon seized {330}the kingdom, and dismissed them. Other princes have equally regretted the rash deed of their destruction. Even the emperor Joseph II once assured me in private conversation, that he much lamented the suppression of the order of the Jesuits. He repeatedly said, that, in his mother's time, in which it was accomplished, he was never consulted upon the measure, and that he would never have acceded to it.

Our country has happily escaped the horrors of modern revolution; but our country has had its alarms. To prevent the recurrence of them, it must surely be sound policy to trust, favour, and protect all those persons, who, from a motive of self-preservation, as well as of duty, will always employ their influence among the lower orders of society, to maintain peace and tranquillity in the several religious classes, which form the bulk of the people, however denominated. With regard to the numerous body of catholics, this line of conduct has been uniformly pursued by their Irish bishops, by the {331}English apostolic vicars, and by all the missionary priests, Jesuits, and other regulars, who have appeared among us: and, I add, in finishing, that, in this respect, they would all be co-operators and steady allies of the bishops and clergy of the establishment, who can have no greater interest, at the present day, than to preserve general tranquillity. Protestant and catholic prelates, with their respective dependants, all equally professing zeal for purity of doctrine, though differing in their tenets, would thus be friends usque ad aras, and general peace would be the precious fruits of their agreement. Thus we have often seen catholic and protestant legions, Austrians and British, arrayed under the same banners, and successfully pursuing their warfare against a common enemy. This matter is susceptible of extension, but Laicus would not understand it. I finish this Letter, as I ended the first, seriously advising him to meddle no more with this subject.

A P P E N D I X ;

T H E B U L L O F C L E M E N T X I I I ,

JUDGMENT OF THE BISHOPS OF FRANCE,

APPENDIX.

No. I.

Apostolicum pascendi Dominici Gregis munus beatissimo apostolo Petro, ejusque successori Romano pontifici delatum à Christo Domino, nulla locorum, nulla temporum conditio, nullus humanarum rerum respectus, nulla denique ratio circumscribere, aut suspendere potest, quominus idem Romanus pontifex ad omnes ejusdem officii partes, nullâ ex iis prætermissâ, nullâ neglectâ, curas suas dirigere debeat, atque omnibus incurrentibus in ecclesia necessitatibus providere. Harum partium inter præcipuas, postrema non est regularium ordinum approbatorum ab apostolica sede tutelam genere, ac fortibus piisque viris, qui eisdem regularibus ordinibus sese solemni sacramento addixerunt, suamque pro tuenda, atque {336}amplificanda catholica religione, agroque dominico excolendo, strenuam operam impendunt, alacritatem addere et animum, languidos et infirmos excitare, et corroborare, jacentibus afflictisque consolationem afferre, præcipue verò ab ecclesia fidei suæ et custodiæ concreditâ, omnia, quæ in animarum ruinam in dies suboriuntur, scandala summovere.

Institutum societatis Jesu ab homine conditum, cui ab universali ecclesia idem, qui sanctis viris cultus et honor tribuitur, à fel. record. prædecessoribus nostris Paulo III et Julio itidem III, Paulo IV, Gregorio XIII, et Gregorio XIV, Paulo V, diligenti examine perpensum, approbatum, sæpius confirmatum, et ab iisdem pluribusque aliis ad novemdecim prædecessoribus nostris ornatum peculiaribus favoribus et gratiis; episcoporum, non modò hujus, sed superiorum etiam ætatum præconio commendatum, ut maxime frugiferum, et fructuosum, et ad promovendum Dei cultum, honorem, et gloriam, æternamque animarum salutem procurandam aptissimum; potentissimorum, piissimorumque regum, et clarissimorum in Christiana republica principum præsidio, et tutela usque munitum; cujus ex disciplina novum prodiêre viri in sanctorum, vel beatorum numerum relati, quorum tres martyrii gloriam sunt consequuti; à pluribus sanctitate claris viris, quos beatos in cœlo novimus sempiternâ perfrui gloriâ, collaudatum; quod ecclesia universa longo duorum sæculorum spatio in suo sinu aluit et fovit, ejusque professoribus præcipuam sacri ministerii partem semper commisit magno cum emolumento animarum; quod ipsa denique catholica ecclesia in Tridentina synodo declaravit ut pium; hoc idem institutum novissimè fuerunt, qui per pravas interpretationes, tum privatis {337}sermonibus, tum scriptis etiam typis in lucem editis irreligiosum, et impium appellare, contumeliis lacerare, probo et ignominiâ afficere non sunt veriti, atque eò devenerunt, ut privatâ suâ non contenti opinione, hujusmodi virus de regione in regionem, nullis non adhibitis artibus, derivare, atque undequaque diffundere sint aggressi, neque adhuc cessant, incautis, si quos inveniant, Christi fidelibus, ut in proprios pertrahant sensus, subdolè propinare: quo in ecclesiam Dei nihil injurium magis, nihil contumeliosius, quasi adeo erraverit turpiter, ut, quod impium, et irreligiosum est, solemniter existimaverit Deo carum et pium, eòque decepta sit flagitiosiùs, quo diuturnius, ad annos scilicet amplius ducentos, cum maximo animarum detrimento, sinui suo tantam hærere labem, et maculam sustinuerit. Huic tanto malo, quod eo longiùs dissimulatum, tanto altiùs radices agit, viresque acquirit in dies, diutius differre remedium, justitia, quæ sua cuique asserere et fortiter tueri jubet, et pastoralis nostra erga ecclesiam sollicitudo non sinit.

Ut igitur tam gravem injuriam à sponsa ecclesia divinitus nobis concredita, atque etiam ab hac apostolica sede propulsemus, et hujusmodi injustas, irreligiosasque voces in animarum perniciem, et seductionem, et contra omnes æqui, bonique rationes longe lateque diffusas, nostrâ authoritate apostolicâ compescamus; ut clericis regularibus societatis Jesu, id a nobis pro justitia exigentibus, suus maneat status, eâdem nostrâ authoritate firmiùs constabilitus; eorumque nunc temporis summè afflictis rebus aliquod afferamus levamen: ut demum venerabilium fratrum nostrorum episcoporum, qui ex omnibus regionibus catholicis eandem societatem nobis per litteras {338}magnopere commendârunt, et ex ea maximas utilitates in suis quisque diœcesibus se capere profitentur, justis desideriis obsecundemus; motu proprio, et ex certa scientia, deque apostolicæ potestatis plenitudine, omnium prædecessorum nostrorum inhærendo vestigiis, hâc nostrâ perpetuò valiturâ constitutione, eodem modo, ratione et formâ, quibus ipsi edixerunt, et declarârunt, nos quoque edicimus, et declaramus; institutum societatis Jesu summopere redolere pietatem et sanctitatem, tum ob præcipuum finem, quo maxime spectat, defensionem scilicet, propagationemque catholicæ religionis, tum ob media, quæ adhibet ad ejusmodi finem consequendum, quod vel ipsa nos hactenus docuit experientia; cum ex eadem disciplina tam multos ad hanc usque ætatem prodiisse novimus orthodoxæ fidei propugnatores, sacrosque præcones, qui invicto animi robore terrâ marique subiêre pericula, ut ad gentes inmanitate barbaras evangelicæ doctrinæ lumen afferrent, et quotquot idem profitentur laudabile institutum, partim intentos juventuti religione et bonis artibus erudiendæ, partim operam dare spiritualibus exercitiis tradendis, partim assiduè versari in sacramentis præcipuè pœnitentiæ et eucharistiæ administrandis et ad eorum frequentiorem usum fidelibus excitandis; tum homines in agris degentes divini verbi pabulo recreare; ac propterea idem institutum societatis Jesu ad hæc eximia perpetranda, divinâ providentiâ, excitatum, ipsi quoque approbamus, et prædecessorum nostrorum approbationes ejusdem instituti apostolicâ auctoritate nostrâ confirmamus: vota, quibus iidem clerici regulares societatis Jesu juxta idem eorum institutum se devovent Deo, grata illi et accepta esse declaramus: spiritualia exercitia, {339}quæ ab iisdem clericis regularibus traduntur fidelibus à mundi strepitu semotis per dies aliquot, ut de æternâ fui ipsorum salute seriò et unicè cogitent, ut maxime conducibilia ad reformandos mores, et ad Christianam pietatem hauriendam nutriendamque, magnopere probamus, et laudamus: congregationes præterea, seu sodalitia, non modo adolescentium, qui ad scholas ventitant societatis Jesu, sed quævis alia, sive scholarium tantum, sive aliorum Christi fidelium tantum, sive utrorumque simul sub invocatione beatæ Mariæ, seu quovis alio titulo erecta, et quæ in iis pia opera ferventi studio exercentur, probamus, præcipuamque erga beatam Dei Genitricem semper Virginem Mariam devotionem, quæ in iis sodalitiis alitur, et promovetur, magnopere commendamus, nostrorumque fel. record. prædecessorum Gregorii XIII, Sixti V, Gregorii XV, et Benedicti XIV constitutiones, quibus ea sodalitia approbârunt, nos apostolicâ auctoritate nostrâ confirmamus, cæterasque omnes constitutiones à Romanis pontificibus prædecessoribus nostris in ejusdem instituti societatis Jesu functionum approbationem, et laudem conditas, quarum singulas hic haberi volumus pro insertis, auctoritate itidem nobis à Deo traditâ, apostolicæ confirmationis nostræ robore, per hanc nostram constitutionem, munitas volumus, et si opus sit, velut à nobis ex integro conditas, editasque censeri præcipimus, et mandamus.

Nulli ergo omnino hominum liceat hanc paginam nostræ approbationis, et confirmationis infringere, vel ei ausu temerario contraire: si quis autem hoc attentare præsumpserit, indignationem Omnipotentis Dei et beatorum Petri et Pauli apostolorum ejus se noverit incursurum. {340}

Datum Romæ apud Sanctam Mariam Majorem*, anno incarnationis Dominicæ millesimo septingentesimo sexagesimo quarto, septimo idus Januarii, pontificatûs nostri anno septimo.

* Curia Romana annum inchoat à Feste Annuntiationis B. Mariæ, quod incidit in diem 25 Martii, adeoque septimus idus Januarii 1764, coincidit cum 7 Januarii hujus anni 1765, secundùm nostram computandi rationem.

The apostolic office of feeding the Lord's flock, conferred by the Lord Christ on the most blessed apostle Peter and his successor the Roman pontiff, no state of time or place, no regard of human affairs, in short, no consideration whatever, can so circumscribe or suspend as that the same Roman pontiff may not direct his care to all the duties of the said office, without exception or omission, and provide for all the wants which may occur in the church. Among those duties it is not the least to {341}give protection to the regular orders approved by the apostolic see, and to those worthy and pious men, who have, by a solemn vow, devoted themselves to the regular orders, strenuously labouring for the defence and increase of the catholic religion, and in cultivating the Lord's vineyard, to invigorate and encourage, to animate and confirm the languid and weak, to console the downcast and afflicted, but chiefly to remove from the church, entrusted to his faith and custody, all scandals, which from time to time spring up to the destruction of souls.

The institute of the society of Jesus, composed by a man held in honour by the universal church, which sanctifies holy men, has, by our predecessors of happy memory Paul III and Julius III, Paul IV, Gregory XIII and Gregory XIV, and Paul V, been diligently examined, approved, and often confirmed, and by them and nineteen others of our predecessors honoured with peculiar favours; has been publicly extolled by bishops, not only of this age but former ones, as extremely efficient in promoting the worship, honour, and glory of God, and eminently adapted to the salvation of souls; and has been patronised by the most powerful and pious kings, and most celebrated princes in the Christian republic: from its discipline nine persons have been numbered among the saints, three of whom obtained the glory of martyrdom; it has received the united praises of many men renowned for sanctity, now enjoying eternal glory in heaven; the church has cherished it in her bosom for the long space of two centuries, and has ever committed the chief part of the sacred ministry to its professors, with great gain of souls; finally, it was pronounced pious by the catholic church herself in the council of Trent: yet there have lately {342}appeared some, who, by wicked interpretations, have dared, not only in conversation but in writings and publications, to call this very institute irreligious and impious, to revile it, and represent it as wicked and shameful; and have gone such lengths, that, not content with their own private thoughts, they have endeavoured, using every art, to convey the like poison from country to country, and to pour it out everywhere; nor have they yet ceased, where-ever they can find any of the faithful off their guard, to instil craftily their own notions into their minds; than which there can be nothing more injurious, nothing more offensive to the church of God, as if she had so shamefully erred, as solemnly to deem what is impious and irreligious devout and acceptable to God, and had been the more scandalously imposed upon for having so long, namely, for more than two hundred years, with the greatest loss of souls, suffered such a stain to remain in her bosom. Neither justice, which commands that all should receive what belongs to them and be protected in their rights, nor my pastoral solicitude for the church, can suffer any farther delay in putting a stop to this so great evil, which shoots its roots the deeper the longer it remains unnoticed.

In order, therefore, that we may remove so serious an injury from the espoused church divinely committed to our charge, and also from this apostolic see; and that, by our apostolic authority, we may check such unjust and impious assertions, spread far and wide to the seduction and ruin of souls, and entirely regardless of equity and reason; that the constitution of the regular clerks of the society of Jesus may remain undisturbed, according to their appeal to us for justice, and be more firmly established by the same our authority, and that we may afford {343}them consolation in the present grievous state of their affairs; and, lastly, that we may comply with the just desires of our venerable brothers the bishops, who, from every part of the catholic world, have written to us letters greatly extolling the said society, all declaring that they were of the greatest use to them in their respective dioceses; of our own accord and certain knowledge, and by the plenitude of the apostolic power, following the footsteps of all our predecessors, in this our constitution to be in perpetual force, in the same mode and form in which they have proclaimed and declared we also proclaim and declare, that the institute of the society of Jesus is replete with piety and holiness, as well on account of the chief end it has in view, namely, the defence and propagation of the catholic religion, as on account of the means which it directs to be used for that end, hitherto confirmed to us by experience itself; for we know that, even down to these times, its discipline has produced many defenders of the orthodox faith, and pious preachers, who, with unshaken constancy of mind, have encountered dangers by sea and by land to bear the light of the gospel to barbarous nations; and, indeed, those who profess the said laudable institute are always earnestly employed, some in educating youth in the practice of religion and the learned sciences, others in the direction of spiritual exercises, others again in the assiduous administration of the sacraments, especially those of penance and the eucharist, in exciting the faithful to a frequent use of them; likewise in refreshing the inhabitants of country places with the divine food of the word of God: and as it evidently appears, that the said institute of the society of Jesus has been established by the Divine Providence {344}for these great ends, we also approve it, and, in virtue of our apostolical authority, we confirm the approbation of our predecessors bestowed on the said institute: we declare, that the vows by which the said regular clerks of the society of Jesus devote themselves, according to the said institute, to God, are acceptable and pleasing to him: we approve in the highest degree of the spiritual exercises, which the regulars of this society recommend to the use of the faithful, who occasionally retire from the noise of the world to meditate in serious solitude on the means of obtaining eternal salvation, as being highly conducive to the reformation of manners, and to the establishing and nourishing of Christian piety: we likewise approve of their congregations or associations; and not only of those for the use of youth, who attend the schools of the society of Jesus, but also of all other congregations, whether established for scholars only, or for others of the faithful in Christ, of either or both at once, dedicated to the blessed Mary, under whatever title they are formed, in which pious works are fervently practised, especially that particular devotion towards the blessed Virgin, which these institutions nourish and promote; and we, in virtue of our apostolical authority, confirm the constitutions of our predecessors of happy memory, Gregory XIII, Sextus V, Gregory XV, and Benedict XIV, by which they approved of these associations, together with all other constitutions enacted by our predecessors the Roman pontiffs, in approbation of the offices of the said institute, each one of which we wish to be considered as here inserted and confirmed by the strength of our apostolic authority transmitted to us by God, as well as effectually protected by this our constitution; and, if it be necessary, {345}we desire and order, that they may be considered as fresh constitutions, enacted and promulged by us in due form.

It is not, therefore, allowable for any person to infringe, upon any account, this decree of our approbation and confirmation, or rashly to attempt to oppose its authority: and, if any one should be so presumptuous as to attempt it, be it known to him, that he will incur the indignation of Almighty God, and of the blessed apostles Peter and Paul.

No. II.

The noble sentiments of faith and religion, which have ever distinguished our kings, have induced your majesty, after the example of your august predecessors, to suspend the decision of an affair so closely connected with the doctrine and discipline of the church, till you had taken the advice of the bishops of your realm.

As the time your majesty was pleased to allow us for examining the points in question was very short, we applied ourselves to the task with more than ordinary diligence and assiduity; it being one of our chief duties to concur with your majesty's pious views in whatever it may please you to propose for the good of religion, or for the maintaining of good order and tranquillity in the kingdom. We have therefore examined, with all the care which the importance of the subject required, the different articles, concerning which your majesty has done us the honour to consult us, and we think it our duty to communicate our sentiments in the following manner:— {347}

Article I. "Of what use the Jesuits may be in France: the advantages or inconveniences that may attend the various functions, which they exercise under our authority."

The end for which the Jesuits' order was first instituted being the education of youth; the ministerial labours, catechising, preaching, and administring the sacraments; the propagation of the Gospel; the conversion of infidel nations; and the gratuitous exercise of all manner of works of charity towards their neighbour; it is evident this institution is calculated both for the good of religion and the advantage of the state.

This consideration induced pope Paul III to approve the new order by the bull Regimini, 1540; and the popes, his successors, by long experience, being sensible of the great advancement of religion, owing chiefly to the labours of the Jesuits, favoured them with the most distinguishing marks of their good-will and protection. The fathers of the council of Trent call it a holy institution, and, by an extraordinary privilege, dispense with the religious of this society in the general law they had made for other orders concerning their vows. The great promoter of piety and church discipline, St. Charles Borromœus, took care to inform the fathers of that council how much he esteemed this order, and how desirous the pope was to favour those religious, on account of the visible advantages arising to the church from their zealous endeavours. The ambassadors sent by other princes to represent them in that council had the same favourable opinion of the Jesuits, as plainly appears from their proposing the establishment of these religious in Germany, as the most efficacious means to restore religion and piety in the empire. {348}

However, it cannot be denied, but the novelty and singularity of this order, the many privileges granted them by the popes, and the great extent and generality of the exercises in which they are conversant, according to their calling, exposed them to the jealousy and opposition of other religious orders. The universities, the mendicant orders, and others, tried all means to hinder their establishment in France: your majesty's parliaments, in their remonstrances, laid open the many inconveniences, that might attend their being admitted into this kingdom: Eustace de Bellay, the then bishop of Paris, opposed them, and even the clergy of France, in their assembly at Poissy, anno 1561, expressed a diffidence and apprehension, that the Jesuits might encroach upon their rights; for, though they consented to their admission, they did it with such restrictions and limitations as then seemed proper to secure the rights and jurisdiction of the bishops.

Anno 1574, the clergy of your kingdom, having been apprised of the credit and the approbation this institution had gained in the council of Trent, in conformity to the judgment of that general assembly, declare by their deputies, upon the article concerning the profession of novices after one year's probation, that, by this rule, their intention was not any way to derogate from or to make any change in the good constitutions of the clerks of the society of Jesus, approved by the holy apostolic see.

It appears even, that the Jesuits, by their behaviour, had got the better of those prejudices, which had formerly been conceived against their order, seeing that, in the year 1610, when so great a storm was raised against them, Henry de Gondy, bishop of Paris, gives their {349}character in words very different from those of his predecessor, Eustace de Bellay, viz. that the order of the Jesuits was greatly serviceable both to church and state, on account of their learning, piety, and exemplary behaviour.

Hence it was, that, in the general assembly of the states, anno 1614 and 1615, both the clergy and the nobility so pressingly desired the re-establishment of the Jesuits, for the instruction of youth, in the city of Paris, and the erection of other colleges in the different towns of the kingdom: this they recommended to their deputies as a matter of the greatest concernment, desiring they would most earnestly address his majesty, in order to obtain a favourable and speedy answer; the assembly being sensible how greatly the order of the Jesuits, by their learning and industry, had contributed, and, with God's assistance, would again contribute towards the maintaining of faith and religion, the extirpation of heresies, the restoration of piety and morality, &c. Again, in the assembly of the clergy, anno 1617, we find the Jesuits' schools proposed as the most proper means to revive and imprint piety and religion in the minds of the people.

Nothing, perhaps, is better calculated to convince us how high an idea your majesty's royal predecessors had of the usefulness of this body of men, than the patents, which they were pleased to grant, for the erecting many of their colleges in your dominions: this was particularly remarkable in the letters patent, granted by your majesty's great grandfather Louis XIV, of glorious memory, for their establishment in the college of Clermont, wherein he says, that in this he had no other view than to {350}support, countenance, and encourage those religious in their laborious employments for the education of youth in all useful sciences, and particularly in the knowledge of whatever may concern their duty towards God, and towards those who are placed over them for the government of the people. But this he afterwards expressed in a more emphatic manner, when he was pleased to give his own august name to that college.

The Jesuits are also of great service in our dioceses, by enforcing and giving new life and vigour to piety and religion, by their sermons, their spiritual instructions, their missionary excursions, their congregations, spiritual retreats, &c., performed with our approbation and authority.

For these reasons we are persuaded, that to deprive the people of their instruction would be extremely prejudicial to our dioceses. And, in particular with regard to the education and instruction of youth, it would be a very difficult task to find persons capable of serving the public to equal advantage, especially in the country towns, where there are no universities.

The religious of other orders, who, by their vows and state of life, are not devoted to this kind of labour, as they are little conversant in the method of teaching, and strangers to that disagreeable confinement and subjection, which is inseparable from that employment, are too much taken up with the other necessary observances of their order to give that constant and due attendance, which is requisite for the education of youth.

As to other clerks regular and priests living in community, they have not a sufficient number of persons to supply the place of the Jesuits. The secular clergy, {351}indeed, with the allowance of the bishop, may undertake this employment: but, not having been brought up to it from their youth, they would not much relish this kind of life, nor have they equal experience or skill in the business. Add to this, that, as most of our dioceses have not near a sufficient number of priests to answer all the duties of the ministry, it would not be possible for us to fill up the places that would become vacant by the removal of the Jesuits.

Shall we then have recourse to the laity? alas! few of these are to be found of that turn of mind as willingly to embrace so laborious and disagreeable an employment as is that of teaching; fewer still, whose talents and qualifications are equal to it.

The Jesuits in France are possessed of a hundred colleges: if these were removed, where could we find a sufficient number of schoolmasters and professors of equal parts to fill up the vacancies in all these colleges? As the Jesuits make up one community and incorporated body of men, they have this peculiar advantage, that, amongst all the religious, whom they train up to this exercise, they can make choice of such as are most likely to succeed and to answer the expectation of the public; and, if any one should misbehave, in a moment's warning they can provide another in his room; an advantage not to be expected in religious orders that are not so strictly addicted to this employment; nor amongst persons, who, though otherwise duly qualified, still want numbers for the business; much less amongst laymen, who, by their state of life, are free to choose for themselves, and no way concerned about their successors.

Adhering, therefore, to the judgment of the vicars of {352}Christ and of the council of Trent concerning the society of Jesus, and in conformity to the testimony, which the clergy of your majesty's kingdom, the kings your august predecessors, and your whole kingdom, have given of the usefulness of the Jesuits in France, we are persuaded, that, if due care be taken to prevent any abuse, that may insinuate itself in the exercise of their functions, this religious body cannot but be of very great service both to church and state.

In our examination of the third article, we shall have the honour to present your majesty with some regulations, which we conceive to be the best adapted for preventing all such abuses.

Article II. "How the Jesuits behave in their instructions and in their own conduct, with regard to certain opinions which strike at the safety of the king's person; as likewise with regard to the received doctrine of the clergy of France, contained in the declaration of the year 1682; and in general with regard to their opinions on the other side of the Alps."

Our history informs us, that, in the infancy of the society in France, the Calvinists used their utmost endeavour to hinder the growth of a body of men raised on purpose to oppose their errors, and to stop the spreading contagion: to this end they dispersed into all parts a multitude of pamphlets, in which the Jesuits were arraigned, as professing a doctrine inconsistent with the safety of his majesty's sacred person; being well assured, that the imputation of so atrocious a crime was the shortest and securest way to bring about their ruin. These libels soon raised a prejudice against the Jesuits in {353}the minds of all those, who had any interest in opposing their establishment in France, and some communities even joined in the impeachment. The crimes, which are now laid to their charge, in the numberless writings, that swarm in all parts of your majesty's dominions, are no other than those which were maliciously forged and published above one hundred and fifty years ago. It is not from such libels as these, that we are to form a just idea or rational judgment of the Jesuits' doctrine or behaviour: such wild and groundless accusations did not deserve our attention, and the little notice we took of them may be a convincing proof to your majesty of the Jesuits' innocence.

And, indeed, the inviolable fidelity of the bishops of your kingdom, and their sincere attachment to the crown, is too well known to leave any room for suspecting, that they could be either so blinded as not to discover that, which, as is pretended, is visible to the whole world; or, if they had perceived it, that they should so far have forgot their duty to God, to religion, to your majesty, as to encourage such treasonable doctrine by a criminal silence, and trust the most sacred functions of the ministry to persons convicted of publicly professing the same.

We will not here pretend to refute or to give an exact account of a doctrine, which will not bear the light, and can no way be exposed to the public without danger of infection; of which we may truly say, what St. Paul said of a certain vice, "that its very name should never be heard amongst Christians." And it is with the greatest grief we see all the particulars of this damnable doctrine publicly explained in the French tongue, and purposely {354}dispersed in all parts of your kingdom in an infinity of libels, the reading of which has done more prejudice to your majesty's subjects than could possibly have been caused by reading the fanatic authors themselves, who have treated of that subject. We shall only observe, that, in order to render the Jesuits more odious to the public, care has been taken to hold them forth as the first broachers of a doctrine, that was published long before they had a being. Their enemies have spared no pains to confound and perplex all our ideas concerning this doctrine, jumbling together, at all events, right or wrong, truth and falsehood, in order to bring the Jesuits in guilty: they are ever urging against them a certain period of our history, which, as it equally involves all states and conditions^[121], ought to be blotted out of our annals, and never more be mentioned amongst us.

Whatever may be objected against the foreign Jesuits Mariana, Santarel, Suarez, and Busembaum, this is most certain, that the decree of their general, Acquaviva, appeared so satisfactory to your parliament of Paris, that, in the year 1614, they desired to have the same renewed; and it is well known, that, when those books first appeared in France, the Jesuits, in their declarations to the parliaments, disowned them in so clear, precise, and express terms, as did honour to their body, and gained them the applause of the whole nation. Lastly, their behaviour in the year 1682, and the declarations, which they have lately made to us, and which they desire to have registered at the respective offices in our spiritual courts, as a lasting and authentic testimony of their loyalty and fidelity, leave no room to doubt of their abhorrence and detestation of {355}any doctrine or opinion that may in any wise intrench upon the safety of the sacred person of sovereigns; or of their entire acquiescence to the maxims established by the clergy of your kingdom, in the four articles of 1682.

We must likewise observe to your majesty, that the instructions of the Jesuits in our dioceses are all performed in public; innumerable persons, of all conditions, are witnesses of what they teach; and we have the honour to assure your majesty, that they never were accused at our tribunals of teaching any such doctrine as is now imputed to them. Let us inquire of those, who have been brought up in their colleges, who have frequented their missions, their congregations, their retreats, we are persuaded there is not a man in the nation, who can attest, that he ever heard them teach a doctrine contrary to the safety of your majesty's person, or to the received maxims of the kingdom. On the contrary, in justice to their character, we must all confess, that the constant theme and subject of their school exercises is to celebrate the memorable deeds and heroic actions of our monarchs, and their whole study to impress in their hearers the most dutiful sentiments of loyalty and respect towards your majesty.

Article III. "The conduct of the Jesuits with regard to their subordination to bishops; and whether, in the exercise of their functions, they do not encroach on the pastoral rights and privileges."

It cannot be denied but that, if the Jesuits were to avail themselves of the many and great privileges which, at different times, have been granted to them by the see apostolic, they could not be said to live subordinate, either to bishops or to their ecclesiastical superiors. But {356}we are to observe, that these privileges were granted them by a communication and participation of such as had been granted to the mendicant orders, and to the other religious, long before they came into the world; and, with regard to these, we find a decree in the explanation of their rule (art. xii, p. 447), that they are to make use of their privileges with the greatest caution and moderation, and with no other view than for the spiritual advantage of their neighbour; for, being bound by their fourth vow, immediately upon the first notice of his holiness's command, to embark, in order to preach the Gospel to the most remote and barbarous nations, these privileges become absolutely necessary in places where neither bishops nor other pastors are to be found. We may also take notice, both with regard to the bull of Paul III, and those of his successors, that there is a wide difference between their approbation of the first plan of the institute, or of the additions that were afterwards made for the perfecting of the same, and the privileges granted to that society, which are merely accessory to the institute; for these bulls, being written in the ordinary style of the court of Rome, the dispositions made by them cannot be brought into precedent, or have any other force than that which is allowed them by the pope's decretals and the laws of the kingdom, both which have long since declared, that privileges granted by the court of Rome, contrary to the jurisdiction of bishops, or derogatory to the due subordination of the faithful to their pastors, are of no effect without their consent, and, if they any way concern the state, without the approbation of the sovereign.

However, we find, even to the year 1670, that the Jesuits, as well as the other mendicant orders, used their {357}best endeavours to maintain these privileges, against the common law and the jurisdiction of bishops, on pretence, that the discipline of the council of Trent, which had abolished them, was not received in France. We read in the acts of our bishopricks, that attempts to this purpose were made by the Jesuits at Quimper, at Agen, at Sens, and at Rhodez, where, in conjunction with the mendicant orders, they carried on their suits at law for a long time against the bishops of those dioceses.

But since that time the Jesuits are not known to have formed any such pretensions; on the contrary, they have renounced all those privileges, which may any way seem to intrench, either on the established maxims of the kingdom, or on the liberties of the Gallican church; and, as they still persist in that renunciation, and have expressed the same, in the clearest terms, in the declaration, which they lately presented to us, nothing more can reasonably be demanded of them with regard to this article.

But to prevent any abuse, that possibly may hereafter arise, and to keep religious orders in due subjection and subordination to their ordinaries, after having examined, with all diligence, the complaints that at different times have been made by the bishops, concerning the attempts of the Jesuits, and of other religious, contrary to the rights of pastors and the episcopal jurisdiction, we have agreed on the following regulations, grounded on the canon law and the discipline of the Gallican church.

1. That the Jesuits and all other religious, who pretend to be exempted from the jurisdiction of their bishops, and to hold an immediate dependence on the see apostolic, shall not be allowed to preach or confess in our dioceses, {358}without having been examined by the bishop, or his vicars, or others, whom he may appoint for that purpose, and without being approved by him; which approbation he may limit or revoke, as he shall think fit.

2. That they shall not be permitted to receive children to their first communion, though they be their own scholars, without the consent of the curate or bishop of the diocese; and, during the fifteen days of Easter, they shall not hear any annual confessions without their permission.

3. That they shall send all their penitents, even their own scholars and pensioners, to receive the paschal communion in the parish church, unless they have a dispensation from the curate or bishop.

4. That they shall not confess any person that is in danger of death without advertising the curate thereof.

5. That in the missionary excursions, which they make with our consent, they shall take care that the curates be not defrauded of their dues.

6. That they shall not admit any priest, whether secular or regular, though otherwise approved, to assist them in the labour of their missions, without the express consent of the bishop.

7. In their lessons of divinity, whether public or private, they shall teach the four propositions of the French clergy, assembled 1682; and, as often as the bishop of the diocese or the archbishop shall require it, they shall be bound to let them see their books or lectures of philosophy, or of moral or scholastic divinity, which they make use of in their seminaries or other houses where they teach, either in public or private.

8. They shall not publicly defend any theses, {359}without having them first examined and approved by the bishop.

9. Whenever it shall seem good to the bishop, he shall be allowed to see and examine the books they make use of for the instruction of their own colleges or other houses.

10. In teaching the rudiments of the Christian religion, they shall use the catechism of the diocese where they live. In one word, the bishops shall have full inspection and superintendence over all their instructions, whether public or private.

11. They shall not gather any congregation, or set on foot any confraternity or retreat, without the consent of the bishop, who is to judge whether the faithful may not thereby be hindered from duly frequenting their parish churches, a thing so earnestly recommended by the sacred canons.

12. These congregations shall never be allowed to meet at the hours when the office or divine service is performed in the parish church; and the bishop shall regulate these meetings as he shall judge most expedient for the advancement of piety and religion in his diocese; and, when he shall think fit, may repeal any such licence before granted.

13. They shall not be allowed to publish any indulgence without having it first examined and approved by the bishop. By all which we do not intend any way to derogate from any other rights, which the French clergy may have over the Jesuits or other regulars.

14. In the exercise of the different duties of their calling they shall not encroach upon the rights of chapters, curates, universities, or any body of men, who are permitted to teach in this kingdom. {360}

We are sensible of the great advantages that must attend the due execution of these regulations, for the maintaining of true faith and morality, for preserving the liberties of the Gallican church, and securing to bishops, chapters, universities, and to all orders of men, the invaluable possession of their rights and privileges; for which reason we humbly implore your majesty's authority and protection, which alone can give them due sanction and stability, to the end that all your subjects may teach one and the same doctrine, and, by a due subordination of all the parts, may contribute to the good order, peace, and well being both of church and state.

Article IV. "Whether it may not be convenient to moderate and set bounds to the authority which the general of the Jesuits exercises in France."

We have examined the Jesuits' institute with the greatest care and attention, as to what concerns the authority of the general, or the obligation of obedience in the subjects; and have the honour to assure your majesty, that we have found these as much limited and restrained by the Jesuits' rule as by that of any other order. For instance; parte vi, Declarat Constitut. tom. i, p. 408, it is said, Let our obedience be always most perfect, as well in the execution as in our will and judgment, performing all that is commanded with the greatest alacrity, spiritual joy, and perseverance; persuading ourselves, that all is right which is commanded; denying and rejecting, by a kind of blind obedience, any private judgment or opinion of our own to the contrary. And thus we are to behave with regard to whatever our superior may command, when {361}it does not appear to be any way sinful, as has been elsewhere observed by us.

Hence it plainly appears, that the Jesuits are never bound to obey their general's orders, when, by obeying him, they would be found guilty of the least sin at God's tribunal. We find, that most other religious orders, according to the stile of their rule, profess obedience to all their superiors' commands, which are not repugnant to faith or morality. But what danger can be apprehended, either to the church or state, from that obedience, which is not sinful on any account, which is neither prejudicial to religion nor hurtful to the rights or properties of any of your majesty's subjects? We may add, that this rule of obedience doth not particularly concern the general, but equally regards all other subordinate superiors, who, by virtue of their subjects' vow, have equal claim to their obedience: whence it also appears, that St. Ignatius did not think fit to vest the general with any other authority over the whole society than that which the superior of every religious community ought to have over his subjects.

Those expressions, that they are to abandon themselves to the disposition of their superior, as if they were a dead body, &c. cannot give offence to any but such as are strangers to the language of the ascetick writers, and who are not able to form an idea of any perfection or Christian accomplishment, that doth not suit with their own state and condition. We should never end were we to lay before your majesty what we find in the fathers and masters of a spiritual life, or in the rules of other religious orders, concerning this article of obedience; it may suffice to observe, that they all make use of the {362}like or even harder expressions; all propose the same examples and comparisons, or others to the same purpose.

But, after all, it is evident, by the fundamental law and constitution of the society, that a general congregation has a far greater power and authority over the general than he can pretend to over the society. The same general assembly, or representative body of the order, which creates him general, names also and appoints his assistants, who have a watchful eye upon his behaviour, and, when they observe any great fault in his conduct, or defect in his administration, are bound by oath to inform against him, and to denounce him to the society; and if the case be notorious and scandalous, or if there be danger in delay, the provincials or superiors of provinces may convene themselves without waiting for the summons or writs^[122] from the assistants, and immediately proceed to the arraignment, trial, and deposition of the general^[123], {363}whom also, if they judge it necessary, they may dismiss and eject out of the society. There is not, perhaps, to be found a general of any other religious body, who has so absolute and perpetual a dependence on his order; it being well known, that the general of the Jesuits has not power to dispose of the least thing in his own behalf or to his private advantage, nor can so much as command any other diet or apparel, than that which is assigned him by the society^[124].

It is true, indeed, that the general alone can dispose of all the places and employments of the order, but this he cannot do without taking the advice of his counsel^[125]; and nothing, perhaps, discovers the wisdom of St. Ignatius more than his having left all places of trust in his order to the free disposal of the general, by which means he has secured the subjects from that partiality and injustice which might be apprehended from their immediate and subaltern superiors, who, by the intercession and solicitation of friends, relations, or benefactors, are too often prevailed upon to prefer persons of little merit to others more deserving. He has effectually banished from his order all intrigues and cabals for the gaining of preferment, evils which are not easily guarded against, and are {364}often the cause of fatal divisions in communities, of scandalous law-suits, of jealousies, hatred, and the entire subversion of union, charity, and the primitive spirit of the order. St. Ignatius has, with great judgment, provided against this disorder, and secured the peace and regularity of the whole body, by stripping all the places of preferment in this society of those temporal advantages, which are commonly annexed to them in other orders, whence the most ambitious person amongst them will hardly think it worth his while to make interest for a place, which carries with it no natural allurement of ease or convenience, and has little else but the empty name of superiority to recommend it.

In an order, that was to be wholly devoted to the service of the public, it was necessary, that such a plan of government should be established as should leave no room for subjects to doubt, but that all the places and employments were given to persons the most deserving, and, according to the best rules of human prudence, the most capable of filling them to advantage. This assurance frees them from all anxiety and solicitude concerning the dispositions of superiors, either with regard to themselves or others, and they have no other concern but to comply faithfully with the duties of their institute, to perfect themselves and benefit their neighbour in that employment, which is assigned them by their superior, whose orders and appointment they respectfully embrace as the disposition of Divine Providence.

With regard to the authority of the general over the temporalities of the order, we find^[126], that he has power {365}to make all kinds of contracts in behalf of the colleges and houses of the society, though he is not allowed to convert any thing to his own private use or advantage^[127]. He cannot transfer the revenues of one college to another, nor assign any part of them for the maintenance of Profest Houses^[128], which are not to have any rents, but are entirely to subsist upon charity. The donations, which are made to the body, without being assigned to any determinate use, are at the general's disposal^[129], who may sell them, and annex them to any house, as he shall judge most expedient for promoting God' honour and the good {366}of religion; but with this caution, that, when such donations are made by persons who enter into the society, they be not alienated from the province^[130], unless, perhaps, the great distress of some house in another province should call for immediate relief. And, with regard to places that are subject to the dominion of different princes, the general is not allowed to make any such translation of property from one territory to another, without their consent^[131], but he can never appropriate to his own use, or make over to his relations, any part of that which is given to the society, without incurring certain danger of being deposed from his office^[132]. Hence it is plain, that the {367}general is no more than a kind of steward and administrator of the goods and possessions belonging to the society, the property whereof is wholly vested in the colleges and other houses.

It doth not appear to us, that this manner of administration can be any way prejudical to the colleges of the order; neither can it with reason give umbrage to the state, or cause any distrust in the government, their general having no power to dispose of the possessions belonging to the colleges in your majesty's dominions, contrary to the laws and established customs of your kingdom; nor can it be supposed, that such an attempt would ever escape the vigilance of our magistrates, the faithful depositaries of your majesty's authority.

But it may appear dangerous to some, that so many thousands of your majesty's subjects should have a dependence upon one man, and be engaged to a foreigner by motives of conscience and inclination; and it may seem, that, in times of trouble and intestine divisions, the danger is still more to be apprehended. In answer to this objection we beg leave to observe, that, in your majesty's dominions, there are other religious orders far more numerous than the Jesuits, and who, by their vow of obedience, have no less dependence on their foreign generals; whence it is highly unreasonable, that the Jesuits should be marked out as the only object of our fears and jealousies on that account: to say the truth, there is no society or body of men in the nation, who may not give trouble to the state, and some cause of fear, {368}should they deviate from their duty, or forget the obedience due to their lawful superiors. Are we then immediately to suppress all these most serviceable corporations, and deprive ourselves of that which is a real good and advantage to the whole kingdom, for the apprehension of a remote and imaginary evil? The Jesuits certainly are not less bound by your majesty's laws than the rest of your subjects; and, if from things past we may be allowed to form a judgment of their future behaviour, we have little or no reason to fear any disturbance from that quarter. It is well known, that, in the year 1681, during our disputes with Rome concerning benefices, the pope's briefs were conveyed into the hands of the Jesuits in France, with express orders, both from his holiness and from their general, to disperse them immediately about the kingdom; but they, without much deliberation, on the 20th of June, produced the packet in open court, and, by their candid behaviour in that critical conjuncture, deserved that remarkable compliment from the first president, M. de Novion, that it was lucky those papers had fallen into the hands of persons of their prudence and discretion: that they had too good heads to be imposed upon, and hearts too loyal to be corrupted^[133]. We are also assured by the general advocate, Talon, that no one could reasonably tax the Jesuits, whose behaviour on that occasion was fully justified by the bitter reproach and severe reprimand they afterwards underwent, both from the pope and their own general^[134]. This one short passage of our history may convince us, {369}more effectually than all the reasonings in the world, that the Jesuits, according to their rules, do not profess any other obedience to their general than is consistent with their duty towards their king and country.

We are moreover convinced, that this obedience of the Jesuits to their general, as prescribed by their rule, and their fourth vow, by which they cannot be fully bound to the order till they have attained the age of thirty-three, are the two essential principles, and, as it were, the foundation stones, on which the whole edifice of their constitution is raised: these cannot be changed without overthrowing the whole building; neither can any alteration be made in them without forming a new constitution, very different from that to which the Jesuits have bound themselves by vow. These two fundamental articles discover to us the extraordinary wisdom of their founder, who, with great judgment and forecast, has thus provided against the growth of any dangerous irregularity in the order, and secured such a constant tenor of government, as was necessary to qualify the religious subjects for the great duties of their calling.

It was, doubtless, for these reasons, that the council of Trent so highly commended and approved of this institute: that the late pope, Benedict XIV, in the bull Devotum, anno 1746, called them most wise laws and institutions, ex præscripto sapientissimarum legum et constitutionum, &c.: that the clergy of France, anno 1574, stiled them good and sound regulations: lastly, that the great Bossuet assures us, that in this rule he discovered numberless strokes of consummate wisdom^[135]. Which {370}testimonies are greatly confirmed by the example of those other religious orders, which have sprung up in the church since the first establishment of the Jesuits, whose founders have framed good part of their rule after the model of this institute.

All which things considered, we are of opinion, that no alteration can be made in the Jesuits' rule, with regard to the power and authority of the general. And your majesty will give us leave to observe, that, if it were expedient to make such a reform, it would neither be agreeable to the ecclesiastical law, nor to the avowed practice of all ages, nor in particular to the discipline of the church of France and the established maxims of your courts of parliament, to undertake an affair of this nature without the concurrence and joint consent of his holiness the supreme pastor of the church, of the bishops of France, and of a general congregation of the Jesuits: we might add, without the consent of all the professed Jesuits, as such an alteration in their dependence on their general would affect the very vitals of the order, and change the whole constitution.

For these one hundred and fifty years, our history affords one only instance (of 1681) in which this authority of their general might have been any way prejudicial to the state; and if, on that occasion, the loyalty of the French Jesuits underwent a very severe trial, it had no other effect than to convince the whole kingdom how well they deserved that honourable testimony of your parliament, that their prudence guarded them against all surprise, and their loyalty against corruption.

But nothing, perhaps, can be of greater weight in this matter than the judgment of your majesty's royal {371}predecessor Henry IV, of glorious memory^[136], who, in the midst of all his troubles, when the kingdom was in the greatest ferment, and he beset by persons, who spared no pains to instil into his mind the greatest distrust of the Jesuits, desired no other security for their good behaviour than this alone, that he might have one of that body ever near his person in quality of preacher to his majesty, and that a French assistant should be established with the general at Rome.

Your majesty is still possessed of the same security; and, since we are taught by the experience of a hundred and fifty years, that this is abundantly sufficient for the purpose, there can be no need of any farther caution or new regulation; especially as the Jesuits, in the late declaration, which they had the honour to present your majesty, have assured us in the most express terms, that, if their general was to require any thing of them contrary to the laws of your kingdom or to the obedience and respect due to your majesty, they neither could nor would pay any regard to such commands; and that their vow of obedience, as it is explained in their rule, doth no way bind them to such a compliance. This so peremptory declaration of the Jesuits, and the wise dispositions of the edict in 1603, leave no room to apprehend any danger from the general's abusing his authority to the prejudice of your majesty's kingdom. We are, &c.

If, in company of the other prelates, I did not add my name to the answer which they had the honour to present your majesty, it was not that I differed in the least from their judgment as to the four articles, which your majesty was pleased to propose to their examination, concerning the usefulness, the doctrine, the conduct, and the government of the Jesuits. I am very sensible that, in point of virtue and learning, there is no bishop in the nation to whom I ought not to give the precedency; and, in this view, would willingly have subscribed after all my brother bishops: but there is a regard due to the dignity of the see, to which your majesty has graciously been pleased to call me, and I must not take a step, that may interfere with those prerogatives, which, after the example of your august predecessors, you think it your duty to maintain. No other consideration could have prevented my setting my hand to a testimony so much to the advantage of the Jesuits of your kingdom: and, whilst I have the honour to assure your majesty of my entire adherency to that solemn act, I once more beg leave to implore your justice and supreme authority in behalf of a religious body, {374}eminent for learning and piety, and well deserving your royal protection, for the great services, which, during the two last ages, they have rendered both to church and state.

T H E E N D.

NOTES

[1] See Substance of a Speech of Sir John Coxe Hippisley, Bart. published by Murray, 1815.

[2] Robertson's Charles V, vol. iii, p. 225.—To supply the malicious omission of the pamphlet writer, I will here insert the historian's report of the Jesuits in South America. "But it is in the new world that the Jesuits have exhibited the most wonderful display of their abilities, and have contributed most effectually to the benefit of the human species. The conquerors of that unfortunate quarter of the globe had nothing in view but to plunder, to enslave, and to exterminate its inhabitants. The Jesuits alone have made humanity the object of their settling there. About the beginning of the last century they obtained admission into the fertile province of Paraguay, which stretches across the southern continent of America, from the bottom of the mountains of Potosi to the confines of the Spanish and Portuguese settlements on the banks of the river de la Plata. They found the inhabitants in a state little different from that which takes place among men when they first begin to unite together: strangers to the arts; subsisting precariously by hunting or fishing; and hardly acquainted with the first principles of subordination and government. The Jesuits set themselves to instruct and to civilize these savages. They taught them to cultivate the ground, to rear tame animals, and to build houses. They brought them to live together in villages. They trained them to arts and manufactures. They made them taste the sweets of society, and accustomed them to the blessings of security and order. These people became the subjects of their benefactors, who have governed them with a tender attention, resembling that with which a father directs his children. Respected and beloved almost to adoration, a few Jesuits presided over some hundred thousand Indians. They maintained a perfect equality among all the members of the community. Each of them was obliged to labour, not for himself alone, but for the public. The produce of their fields, together with the fruits of their industry of every species, were deposited in common store houses, from which each individual received every thing necessary for the supply of his wants. By this institution, almost all the passions, which disturb the peace of society, and render the members of it unhappy, were extinguished. A few magistrates, chosen by the Indians themselves, watched over the public tranquillity, and secured obedience to the laws. The sanguinary punishments, frequent under other governments, were unknown: an admonition from a Jesuit; a slight mark of infamy; or, on some singular occasion, a few lashes with a whip, were sufficient to maintain good order among these innocent and happy people."—Charles V, p. 219.

[3] The author of the following Letters, who owed the publication of them to the liberality of the editor of the Pilot, complained of the refusal of the editor of the Times to admit into that paper a vindication of character, though he had opened his pages to the blaster of it. As newspapers in modern times have erected themselves into a kind of tribunal of the dernier resort, the editors should not forget the indispensable maxim of all courts of justice, and concede alteri parti occasionem audiri should be a standing rule with them, or they must submit to pass for the star-chambers of jacobinism, or of some other party.

[4] D'Alembert said to one of his intimates, with whom he had been to hear the celebrated sermon preached by P. Beauregard against the apostles of infidelity, "These men die hard."

[5] The passage above cited, though not published with his name, is well known to have proceeded from the pen of M. de Lally Tolendal.

[6] It is well known, that the Dutch, at this time, did every thing in their power to undermine the Portuguese in Japan, and that they fabricated tales of the Jesuits to alarm the government, which, they said, was to be subverted, the emperor to be dethroned, and the people made slaves to the pope. In consequence of these slanders, no Christian was suffered in the empire; when, to preserve their commerce, the Dutch abjured Christianity, and, in proof of their sincerity, consented to tread publicly upon the cross at certain times.

[7] Encyclopedia Britannica.

[8] Spirit of Laws, book v, chap. 14.

[9] Robertson's Charles V, vol. iii, page 224.

[10] See Sully's Memoirs.

[11] This passage is also from the pen of M. Lally Tolendal.—When I was at Paris, in the autumn of 1814, he was engaged on the Life of Charles I, of England. After the return of Bonaparte, Louis XVIII appointed him one of his ministers.

[12] See Letter IV.

[13] This, if well executed, would be a very interesting work, and it is not impossible, that it may be attempted.

[14] See Letter III.

[15] Lord Clarendon, vol. i, page 73.

[16] Hume's History of England, vol. vi, page 297, &c.

[17] Hume's History of England, vol. vi, page 378.

[18] On the subject of the popish plots, see Dr. Milner's Letters to a Prebendary.

[19] As to the judges of those times, see what a picture is drawn of a chief justice by the most celebrated of our historians:—"To be a Jesuit, or even a catholic, was of itself a sufficient proof of guilt. The chief justice (sir William Scroggs), in particular, gave sanction to all the narrow prejudices and bigoted fury of the populace. Instead of being counsel for the prisoners, as his office required, he pleaded the cause against them, browbeat their witnesses, and on every occasion represented their guilt as certain and uncontroverted. He even went so far as publicly to affirm, that the papists had not the same principles which protestants have, and therefore were not entitled to that common credence, which the principles and practices of the latter call for. And, when the jury brought in their verdict against the prisoners, he said, 'You have done, gentlemen, like very good subjects, and very good Christians, that is to say, like very good protestants.'"—Hume's History of England, vol. viii, ch. 67, p. 91. See also what the same author says in his third appendix: "Timid juries, and judges, who held their offices during pleasure, never failed to second all the views of the crown. And, as the practice was anciently common, of fining, imprisoning, or otherwise punishing the jurors, merely at the discretion of the court, for finding a verdict contrary to the direction of these dependent judges, it is obvious, that juries were then no manner of security to the liberty of the subject."—Vol. v, p. 458. And, if these be not enough, take conviction from the pen of one of the most penetrating geniuses of the age: "The proceedings on the popish plot," says Mr. Fox, in his History of James II, "must always be considered as an indelible disgrace upon the English nation, in which king, parliament, judges, juries, witnesses, prosecutors, have all their respective, though certainly not equal shares. Witnesses, of such a character as not to deserve credit in the most trifling cause, upon the most immaterial facts, gave evidence so incredible, or, to speak more properly, so impossible to be true, that it ought not to have been believed if it had come from the mouth of Cato: and, upon such evidence, from such witnesses, were innocent men condemned to death and executed. Prosecutors, whether attornies and solicitors-general, or managers of impeachment, acted with the fury which, in such circumstances, might be expected; juries partook, naturally enough, of the national ferment; and judges, whose duty it was to guard them against such impressions, were scandalously active in confirming them in their prejudices, and inflaming their passions. The king, who is supposed to have disbelieved the whole plot, never once exercised his glorious prerogative of mercy. It is said he dared not. His throne, perhaps his life, was at stake."—History of James II, by the right honourable Charles James Fox, page 33.

[20] Fox's History of James II, page 40.

[21] I was unwilling to interrupt the reader at the last quotation from Mr. Fox, but I beg leave here to say a few words relative to the insinuated calumny on the catholic priests of Ireland, to which I then alluded. As I have before observed, it is easy to see, that this attack, under cover of assailing the Jesuits, is aimed at catholics in general. The priests in Ireland are charged, in the pamphlet, with great venality and corruption of morals, and this, the writer says, may be affirmed without the fear of contradiction. To notice this slander is allowing myself to be led from my particular subject into the general one; I will not, therefore, dwell upon it, but, referring the reader to a volume of indisputable authority, though written by a catholic (Dr. Milner's Inquiry into certain vulgar Opinions, Letter xviii), for an interesting account of the Irish clergy and of the Irish poor, I will content myself with extracting a note, or rather reference, from page 182 of the book. "If, gentlemen, you are not under the influence of very gross prejudice, you will, in receiving representations of the necessitous state of Ireland, maturely weigh the allegations of men, who have stigmatized, and still stigmatize as the last of mankind, some of the most deserving and useful men in the community. There are among them preachers and teachers of the first excellence: there are men of profound erudition, men of nice classical taste, and men of the best critical acumen. They are not formed, it is true, to shine in the drawing-room or at the tea-table; nor are such qualifications very desirable in churchmen; for you well know, that the refined manners of fashionable life are often as incompatible with Christian morality, as the grosser vices of the vulgar herd. Their manners are, in general, decent; but their exertions are great, their zeal is indefatigable. See them in the most inclement seasons, at the most unseasonable hours, in the most uncultivated parts, amidst the poorest and most wretched of mankind! They are always ready at a call; nothing can deter them; the sense of duty surmounts every obstacle! And there is no reward for them in this world! The good effects of their zeal are visible to every impartial and discerning mind; notwithstanding the many great disadvantages under which it labours. For instance, you may often find a parish so extensive and populous as to require two or three clergymen properly to serve it, and yet the poverty of the parish is such as to be scarcely able to maintain one in a tolerably decent manner. I could point out many other disadvantages, but I forbear at present," &c.—"After all, the good effects are so conspicuous, that, I repeat it, the lower orders of Irishmen are better instructed in the doctrines of Christianity than the lower orders of Englishmen."

I cannot speak of the catholic priests in Ireland from my own knowledge, but the information I have received, from friends well acquainted with the subject, fully corroborates this character of them. With such a character, already drawn before the public with genuine marks of candour, is it possible that any writer to the public should, in calumniating it, say, that there was no fear of his being contradicted? Was he not contradicted, if I may use the expression, by anticipation? But uncongenial records are useless things, like stern lights.

[22] Rapin's History of England, vol. ii, page 344.

[23] Hume says, that Campion was put to the rack, and, confessing his guilt, was publicly executed. The confession of guilt is not so clearly proved as the putting to the rack. In the life of Campion the confession is denied; and what Hume himself says immediately before is strong against the imputed guilt, that he and Parsons were sent to explain the bull of Pius, and to teach that the subjects of Elizabeth were not bound by it to rebel against her.—See vol. v, chap. xli, page 238.

[24] Page 327, edition 1615.

[25] Hume's History of England, vol. viii, chap. lxvii, page 110.

[26] Hume's History of England, vol. v, chap. xxxviii, page 22, &c.

[27] Hume.

[28] Tom. ii, p. 375.

[29] Bayle, article Loyola.

[30] Dupleix's History of France.

[31] An assembly of the clergy was held at Poissy, in 1561, where James Laynez, then general of the Jesuits, refuted the impieties of Beza, in the presence of the French court.

[32] Filles Dieu.

[33] See the Substance of a Speech of Sir John Coxe Hippisley, Bart., &c.

[34] Sir John informs us (ibid. page 37), that "there is evidence fully on record" to show, that Frederic III, of Prussia, acted, with respect to the Jesuits, upon the "same principles which influenced the measures of the empress Catherine." According to the principles I have thought myself bound to ascribe to her, this concurrence is not unlikely; but, it is very unlikely, that he preserved them in his dominions through the sad ambition of showing a power of managing them. He had declared, that he retained them, in order to furnish the good seed to catholic princes, who might one day wish to recover the plant.

[35] The fifth article of the pacta conventa, confirmed by the empress's edict of September 5, 1772, runs in these words:—"Catholici utriusque ritûs in his provinciis inhabitantes, quæ augustissimæ Russiarum imperatrici ex pacto convento cesserunt, ad civilem statum quod attinet, omnibus possessionibus bonisquæ suis fruentur. In iis vero quæ ad religionem spectant, omnino conservabuntur in statu quo: videlicet, in eodem libero exercitio cultûs et disciplinæ suæ, cum omnibus templis et bonis ecclesiasticis, eodem modo quo possidebantur cum ii catholici sub dominium majestatis suæ imperialis venerunt. Nec majestas sua imperialis nec ejus successores utentur unquam suprema potestate et auctoritate in detrimentum statûs quo catholicæ Romanæ ecclesiæ in commemoratis provinciis." This fifth article was afterwards formally accepted and agreed to by the empress, the king of Poland, and the pope, in the diet of Poland, September 18, 1773, five weeks after the suppression of the society at Rome. The nuncio Garampi had laboured in vain to obtain the exclusion of the Jesuits from the benefit of it.

[36] Additional note, page 36.

[37] Mr. Plowden, whose book, I am sorry to say, I have not read.

[38] "Popes," says the very pontiff on whom sir John relies, "are pilots, steering almost always through boisterous seas, and, of course, must spread or shorten sail according to the weather."—Ganganelli's Letters, Letter cxii.

[39] Ganganelli's Letters, Letter cxii.

[40] Ibid.

[41] Letter cxii.

[42] St Luke, chap. xxiii. verse 24.

[43] Letter cxii.

[44] Appendix No. I.

[45] Urban VII is placed at the head of the roll of the pontiffs hostile to the Jesuits. If sir John will take the trouble of looking into Sacchinus's History, part v, book x, page 505, he will there read, that, as soon as pope Urban VII was elected, he discharged from prison an innocent Jesuit, whom his violent predecessor, Sixtus V, had confined, publicly declaring him to be free from guilt, and suspicion of guilt. This, says the historian, was the first, and it was also the last, act of government of pope Urban VII, who presently was taken ill, and died on the twelfth day after his election, September 27, 1590.

[46] After this, under the hand of Ganganelli, when pope, what can we think of those, who attempt to mislead the public mind by asserting, that the Jesuits were connected with the Inquisition?

[47] This is directly in contradiction to sir John Hippisley's remark of the influence of the Jesuits being considered as so exceptionable, even by prelates of their own community.

[48] Castéra's History of Catherine II.

[49] Clement XIII's Letter of the 9th July, 1763, to the archbishops and bishops of France.

[50] Acts of the Apostles chap. xxv, verse 16.

[51] See page 29.

[52] Spirit of Laws, Book IV, chap. vi.

[53] Dissertation on the Varieties of the Human Species.

[54] Tracts on several interesting Subjects in Politics and Morals.

[55] See the English edition of his work, called "A Relation of the Missions of Paraguay," pages 113, 181, et passim.

[56] M. Lally Tolendal.

[57] See the Life prefixed to his Sermons.

[58] Bausset's Life of Fenelon, vol. i, page 21, &c.

[59] Appendix, No. II.

[60] See the Institute, vol. ii, p. 74.

[61] Juan and Ulloa, Vol. II. chap. xv, p. 179 and 180.

[62] Juan and Ulloa, Vol. II, chap. xv, p. 182 and 184.

[63] See Memoirs of the Ministry of Carvalho, Marquis de Pombal.

[64] Barruel's Histoire du Clergé pendant la Revolution Françoise, page 152.

[65] Infinite are the false reports, made by interested writers, of the missions of South America. The solid refutation of them may be found in many Spanish works, but more agreeably in the Histoire du Paraguay of Charlevoix, the voyage of Juan and Ulloa, and the Cristianesimo Felice of Muratori, already cited.

[66] See vol. i, page 58.

[67] In 1768, when the Jesuit missionaries from Spanish America arrived at Cadiz, a number of them, natives of northern countries, were shipped off to Ostend, to make their way to their respective homes. Their poor garments were almost worn to rags. A new hat was given to each, with a very small pittance in money, proportioned to the distance to which he was to travel. Those, who came from California, reported, that, before they were brought away from Mexico, the priests, who had been sent into California, to take their abandoned stations, returned in the ship, in which they had been sent out, refusing, one and all, to dwell in such a country.

[68] De dign. et aug. Scient. I. 7.

[69] It was a law of the society, with which the general could not dispense, that no rewards or alms were to be demanded or accepted, whereby the spiritual and literary duties of the institute might seem to be recompensed. Even the usual honorary retributions, attached to spiritual functions, and regulated by the canons, were excluded. Hence, when clergymen of other descriptions had preached a course of sermons in royal chapels, they were usually, and very justly, complimented with some considerable benefice, frequently a mitre: when Jesuits had performed the same duty with success, they were thanked in the king's name, and informed, that his majesty would be glad to hear them another year. Perhaps this law of the Jesuits, and their renunciation of church dignities by vow, were among the motives, which engaged princes to employ them so much in spiritual concerns.

[70] Cardinal de Maury's "Eloge de M. l'Abbe Radonvilliers, prononcé le 7 Mai, 1807."

[71] See cardinal de Maury's "Essai sur l'Eloquence, Panegyriques, Eloges, &c." vol. ii, printed at Paris, 1810.

[72] They are found, principally, in the fourth part of their "Constitutions," in the rules of provincials, rectors, prefects of schools, masters, and scholastics, and in their Ratio Studiorum.

[73] See the chapter of part x, entitled "De modo quo conservari et augeri totum corpus Societatis in suo bono statu possit," vol. i, p. 445, of the Prague folio edition.

[74] Institute, vol. ii, p. 408, Prague folio edition.

[75] Institute, vol. ii, p. 408, Prague folio edition.

[76] Ibid. vol. i, p. 407.

[77] Ibid. vol. i, p. 408.

[78] Institute, vol. i, p. 373.

[79] Ibid, vol. i, p. 408.

[80] "Filiis suis, ut convenit, compati noverit."—Institutum Const., Pars IX, vol. ii, c. i, p. 4.

"Conferet secum viros, qui consilio polleant, habere, quorum operâ in iis quæ statuenda sunt . . . uti possit."—Ibid., vol. i, p. 425.

[81] "Vir sit (generalis) . . . in omni virtutum genere exemplum . . . ac præcipuè in eo splendor charitatis . . . sit conspicuus."—Institutum Const., vol. i, p. 135.

"Advertendum quod primo in charitate ac dulcedine, qui peccant, sunt admonendi."—Ibid. vol. i, p. 375.

[82] "Conferet etiam, circumspectè et ordinatè precipære . . . ita ut subditi se potius ad dilectionem majorem quàm ad timorem suorum superiorem possint componere."—Ibid., vol. i, p. 426.

"Ut in spiritu amoris et non cum perturbatione timoris procedatur, curandum est."—Ibid., vol. i, p. 407.

[83] "Juret unusquisque, priusquam det (suffragium) quod eum nominat, quem sentit in Domino magis idoneum."—Ibid., vol. i, p. 431.

[84] "Si accidiret ut valde negligens vel remissus esset, &c. . . . tunc enim coadjutor vel vicarius qui generalis officio fungatur, est eligendus."—Institutum Const., vol. i, p. 439.

[85] "Habet ergo societas cum præposito generali (et idem cum inferioribus fieri possit) aliquem qui accedens ad Deum in oratione, postquam divinam bonitatem consulerit et æquum esse id judicaverit, cum modestia debita ac humilitate, quid sentiat in ipso præposito requiri ad majus obsequium et gloriam Dei, admonere teneatur."—Ibid., Pars IX, c. iv, n. 4, p. 439.

[86] See Part IX, chap. iv, of the Constitutions, entitled "De auctoritate vel providentia quam Societas habere debet erga præpositum Generalem," vol. i, p. 439.

[87] Ibid.

[88] "Erit etiam summi momenti, ut perpetuò felix societatis status conservetur, diligentissimè ambitionem, malorum omnium in quavis republica vel congregatione matrem submovere."—Institutum Const., vol. i, p. 446.

"Qui autem de ambitione hujusmodi convictus esset, activo et passivo suffragio privetur, ut inhabilis ad eligendum alium (generalem), et ut ipse eligatur."—Ibid., vol. i, p. 430.

[89] Institutum Const., vol. i, p. 490.

[90] Institutum Const., vol. i, p. 422.

[91] When Dr. Priestley went to Paris, to enjoy personally the happy improvement of human affairs, at the conclusion of the eighteenth century, the glorious star of reason was culminating. He was known to be a materialist, consequently very naturally taken for an atheist, or at least a naturalist, if I may use the expression, and the arms of the fraternity were open to receive a man so highly distinguished for his chemical discoveries. They eagerly entered into discourse with one, who had denied man a soul, and, after pouring forth their own sublime theories of eternal sleep and energies of nature, they gave him a pause to utter his sublimities; and presently the room echoed with laughter and information that the doctor believes: Le docteur croit, le docteur Priestley croit. Some, who had not heard the conversation, ran to inquire what he believed. Comment! croit-il l'immortalité de l'ame? Point de tout; il convient que l'homme n'a point d'ame. Bien! que croit-il donc? Il croit, l'immortalité du corp. Que diable! quelle bizarerie! Mais, chez docteur, expliquez nous cela. The doctor discoursed on matter, and necessity, and of Jesus Christ as a mere man. Finding that he believed something their astonishment was great; and, for some time, le docteur croit was a bye-word.

[92] Genie du Christianisme, tom. viii.

[93] By his edicts on this subject, the youth of France were to be brought up at his schools throughout the empire; these schools, in every town and village, were all dignified with the appellation of university, the masters of which were appointed by the principal of the school at Paris, and to be under his control. The mathematics and a military spirit were ordered to be the chief things attended to: all boys, of whatever age, wore uniforms and immense cornered hats.

[94] A writer in the Times, cited in the Quarterly Review of Oct. 1811, p. 302.

[95] The Jansenistical apostate monk, Le Courayer, alleges a powerful motive to enforce this doctrine: it is this; "By destroying the credit and reputation of the Jesuits, Rome must be subverted: and when this is once effected, Religion will reform itself."—Hist. du Conc. de Trente, ed. d'Amsterdam, 1751, p. 63.

[96] That the ministers Pombal, Choiseul, Aranda, Tanucci, &c. should have adopted this summary mode of execution at Lisbon, Paris, Madrid, Naples, &c. creates now little surprise, devoted as they were to the views of the philosophers.

[97] It will be readily allowed, that the form of limited monarchy is best calculated to insure the happiness of subjects. Besides this general advantage, many other features of the Jesuits' institute strongly conspired to produce union of minds and hearts among the members. One main cause of it, however, was accidental, and extrinsic to their government and statutes. This was the unceasing pressure of unmerited outward hostility, which, of course, closed them into a more compact phalanx. In the last persecution, a thousand stratagems were devised to create disunion among them, and to engage them to solicit their own dissolution. Their enemies were everywhere disappointed and enraged. They were reduced to assassinate the body, which they could not decompose. In every country, they employed merciless soldiers, and still more unfeeling lawyers, to tear off the Jesuits' cassocks; and everywhere they found the country watered with the Jesuits' tears. Jesuits were everywhere fond of their profession. Can this be a crime?

[98] After some search I have discovered, that Jerom Zarowicz, or Zarowich, was the name of the discharged Polish Jesuit, who forged and published the Monita Secreta in 1616. Subsequent editions, as might be expected, were swelled with fresh matter. Henry a Sancto Ignatio, a Flemish Carmelite friar, and an avowed partisan of the Jansenists Arnaud and Quesnel, trumpeted forth the Monita in his Tuba Magna, a violent invective against the Jesuits, which he printed at Strasburg in 1713, and again in 1717, just at the period when Quesnel was condemned by the famous bull Unigenitus.

While the minister Pombal was persecuting the Jesuits in Portugal, Almada, his agent at Rome, filled that capital and all Italy with outrageous libels against the suffering victims, composed and distributed chiefly by a knot of friars of different orders, who were in his pay, and printed at the press of Nicolas Pagliarini. Some of the former were banished, and the latter was condemned to the galleys. His punishment was remitted by the meek pontiff Clement XIII, and the culprit escaped to Lisbon, where he was employed, honoured, and rewarded by Pombal. I have before me two of these libels, printed in 1760, of which, one is an Italian translation of the Monita Secreta, preceded by a preface of 137 pages, and followed by a long appendix. The performance, like that of Laicus, is a wild, incoherent assemblage of impostures and insults, all written, as the author acknowledges, con uno stile basso e andante, because he professes to write for the lower classes of readers, per illuminare il minuto populo. In fact, his manner and language are almost as low and groveling as those of that eminent adept in the stile basso e andante, Laicus of the Times.

[99] Not having elsewhere met with this monstrous calumny, I incautiously ascribed the invention of it to Laicus. But in one of the Italian libels, mentioned in the last note, the writer, having informed the minuto populo of Italy, that the Jesuits are professed poisoners, gives the proof in these words: "Perhaps pope Innocent XIII was snatched from us by Jesuitical barbarity. There would be no doubt of it, if only the surgeon of that pope, who is still alive (in 1760), would be pleased to declare, that the Jesuits had infused poison through the sore in the old pontiff's leg. But he is silent, through dread of the Jesuits' vengeance." This is called illuminating the minuto populo. Laicus catches the ray, and reflects it, with lustre improved, upon our minuto populo, when he assures them, that Innocent XIII was UNIVERSALLY UNDERSTOOD to have been murdered by the Jesuits. Such is the progress of genius.

[100] See Letter II.

[101] Ibid.

[102] See Letter II.

[103] See Letter II.

[104] Ibid.

[105] See Letter II.

[106] Ibid.

[107] See Letter II.

[108] See Letter III.

[109] Voltaire, in his History of Louis XIV, had the assurance to write, that our king James II was a Jesuit. Abbé Millot, a pitiful imitator of Voltaire, who had been dismissed from the society of the Jesuits, obtained a seat in the French academy, and published Elemens de l'Histoire de France. In this meagre work, not to be outdone by his master, he has the impudence to advance, that St. Louis IX, king of France, was a Dominican friar. All this passes for history with certain readers, who are not quite among the minuto populo.

[110] See Letter III.

[111] Urban VIII was elected pope in 1625. I have before me an authentic list of all the superiors of the Jesuits in England from 1623 downwards to 1773, in which no name like Stillington appears.

[112] See Letter III.

[113] Pope, indeed, has contradicted the calumny in his energetic verse,

Where London's column, pointing at the skies,

Like a tall bully, lifts the head, and lies.

In spite of which, the column is still allowed to disgrace the first city in the world, though it totters, and daily nods destruction around it.—Ed.

[114] It must be acknowledged, that this calumny has been too hastily placed to the credit of Laicus. He has not the honour of the invention. Calumny it certainly is. Whoever knows the angry temper of the parliament of Paris, in 1757, when their opposition to the king, and their fury against the archbishop De Beaumont and the Jesuits, were wound up to an uncommon height, must allow, that they would have been delighted with the detection of the slightest symptom, the most distant presumption of guilt, in any Jesuit. The wretched culprit Damiens was frequently interrogated with this view. He constantly denied that he had any accomplice, but owned, that he had conceived the idea of his crime, from frequently hearing the table talk of members of the parliament, on whom he waited; his design being, as he pretended, only to make the king more attentive to the voice and complaints of the people. Notwithstanding the certainty of this, one of the above mentioned Italian libels, written per il minuto populo, informs them roundly, that the Jesuits were accomplices of Damiens, and that two Jesuits were privately hanged for it in the Bastille. But why was not Laicus equally trusted with the secrets of that state prison? Possibly he has learned this lesson from his oracle Coudrette. He cannot however glory in the invention.

[115] It may be suspected, that Coudrette is really the writer, to whom, suppressing his name, Robertson so often refers his readers, in his account of Jesuits, in the Life of Charles V. Perhaps he was ashamed to name such an author. But he had already forfeited his title to historical impartiality, by acknowledging, that his unfavourable account of the Jesuits is derived from the Comptes Rendus and Requisitoires of La Chalotais, attorney general of the parliament of Bretagne, who, not less than Coudrette, was truly un ennemi acharné des Jesuites.

[116] "They," said Dr. Johnson, "who would cry out Popery in the present day, would have cried Fire in the time of the deluge."

[117] See Letter V.

[118] See Letter V.

[119] See Letter V.

[120] The preservation of the society of Jesus in the Russian empire, in spite of innumerable solicitations, schemes, and intrigues employed to procure its suppression, would form a curious morsel of particular history, highly honourable to the court of Petersburg and creditable to the Jesuits.

[121] The French League.

[122] Si acciderit aliquod ex peccatis (avertas id Deus), quæ sufficiunt ad præpositum officio privandum, simul atque res per sufficientia testimonia, vel ipsius affirmationem constaret, juramento adstringantur assistentes ad id societati denuntiandum.—Cap. V. art. iv, p. 440.

[123] Et si res devulgata et communiter manifesta esset, non expectatâ quatuor assistentium confirmatione, provinciales alii alios vocando convenire debent, et ipso primo die quo in locum hujusmodi congregationis ingredientur, ubi aderunt quatuor qui convocarunt, cum aliis congregatis, rem is aggrediatur cui omnia notoria sunt, et accusatio dilucidè explicetur. Et postquam auditus fuerit præpositus, foras egredi debebit, et antiquissimus ex provincialibus simul cum secretario aut alio assistente, de latâ re scrutinium faciat, et primò quidem an constet de peccato quod objicitur, deinde an ejusmodi sit ut propter id officio privari debeat; et idem suffragia promulget, quæ ut sufficiant duas tertias partes excedent; et tunc statim de alio eligendo agatur, et si fieri potest, non inde priùs egrediatur quàm societas præpositum generalem habeat.—Ibid. p. 440.

[124] Prima ad res externas pertinet vestitûs, victûs et expensarum quarumlibet, quæ omnia vel augere, vel imminuere poterit societas prout præpositum ipsum ac se decere et Deo gratius fore judicabit et tunc societatis ordinationi acquiescere oportebit.—Cap. IV, art. ix, p. 439, tom. i.

[125] Numero autem hujusmodi assistentium quidem quatuor......... et quidem illi ipsi esse poterunt de quibus supradictum......... quamvis autem res graviores ab iis tractandæ sint, statuendi tamen facultas, postquam eos audierit, penès præpositum generalem erit.—Cap. VI, art. i, p. 444, tom. ii.

[126] Est item penès præpositum generalem omnis facultas agenda quosvis contractus emptionum aut venditionum quorumlibet bonorum temporalium mobilium tàm domorum quàm collegiorum societatis, et imponendi aut redimendi quoslibet census super bonis stabilibus ipsorum collegiorum, in eorumdem utilitatem et bonum, cum facultate sese liberandi, restitutâ pecuniâ quæ data fuerit. Alienare autem aut omninò dissolvere collegia vel domos jàm creatas societatis sine generali ejus congregatione præpositus generalis non poterit.—Cap. III. col. ii, p. 336, tom. i.

[127] Cum autem quidquam privatæ utilitatis ex redditibus quærere vel in suum usum convertere non possit, est valde probabile quòd majori cum puritate ac Spiritu constantiùs ac diuturniùs procedat in iis quæ ad bonum regimen collegiorum ad majus Dei ac Domini nostri obsequium provideri convenit.—Cap. I, tit. i, p. 392.

[128] Transferre vel differre domos vel collegia jam creata, aut in usum societatis professæ redditus eorum convertere præpositus generalis, ut in 4 part. dictum est, non poterit.—Cap. IV, art. xlviii, p. 438.

[129] De his vero quæ societati ita relinquuntur ut ipsa pro suo arbitratu et regat et disponat (sive illa bona stabilia sint; ut domus aliqua vel prœdium non alicui certo collegio ab eo qui disponit, relinquit determinare applicatum vel annexum, sive mobilia cujusmodi sunt pecunia, triticum et quœvis alia mobilia) idem generalis disponere poterit, aut vendendo, aut retinendo, aut huic vel illi loco id quod videbitur applicando, prout ad majorem Dei gloriam senserit expedire.—Cap. III, art. vi, p. 437. col. ii, tit. 2.

[130] Declaratum est ut hæc bona tantùm in eâdem provinciâ et non alibi generalis debeat distribuere, pag. 493, item, pag. 702, ibid. eadem provincia in quâ, 1 cap. 30, partis constitutionum distribuenda esse dicuntur bona nostrorum quæ illi societati dare volunt, intelligenda est, in quâ sunt ipsa bona, non autem in quâ quis societatem ingreditur, aut versatur. Sumitur autem provinciæ nomen more societatis, prout scilicet uni præposito provinciali subest.

[131] Quod si in eâdem provinciâ plura sint dominia diversis principibus subjecta, adjecit congregatio diligenter servandam esse eamdem constitutionem ut scilicet in transferendis hujusmodi fratrum nostrorum bonis ex uno Dominio in aliud ejusdem provinciæ societatis, ratio haberetur regum, principum et aliorum potestatum, ne in eis causa ulta offensionis detur, sed ad majorem ædificationem omnium et spiritualem animarum profectum et gloriam Dei omnia cedant.—Tom. i. p. 511.

[132] Sexta locum habet in quibusdam casibus (quos speramus per Dei bonitatem, aspirante ipsius gratiâ, nunquam eventuros) cujusmodi essent peccata mortalia in externum actum prodeuntia, ac nominatìm, copula carnalis: vulnerare quemdam: ex redditibus collegiorum aliquid ad proprios sumptus assumere: vel pravam doctrinam habere. Si quid ergo horum acciderit, potest ac debet societas (si de re sufficientissimè constaret) eum officio privare, ac si opus est, à societate removere. In omnibus præ occulis habendo quod ad majorem Dei gloriam et universale bonum societatis fore judicabitur.—Cap. XII, art. vii, p. 440, tom. i.

[133] Page 215, tome iv, dés Mémoires du Clergé.

[134] Page 451 du même volume.

[135] Maximes et Réflections sur la Comédie, ed. de 1674, p. 138, 139.

[136] Henry IV finished the letter, which he deigned to the general assembly, with these words: "Vos hortamur ad retinendam instituti vestri integritatem et splendorem."

	PAGE
INTRODUCTION	1
CHAPTER I.
Remarks on the Objects of the Author of "A brief Account of the Jesuits," and on his mode of conducting his Argument	5
CHAPTER II.
Inquiry into the Character of the Authorities against the Jesuits, and of those in favour of them; with a notice of some of the Crimes imputed to them	23
CHAPTER III.
Of the Order of the Jesuits, with the prominent features of the Institute	173
{xxii} CHAPTER IV.
Character of Pombal. Summary Observations, and a brief notice of the tendency and danger of Education independent of Religion	229

THE LETTERS OF CLERICUS	261

APPENDIX.
The Bull of Clement XIII	335
The Judgment of the Bishops of France in favour of the Jesuits	346

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The New Conspiracy Against the Jesuits Detected and Briefly Exposed

N e w C o n s p i r a c y

AGAINST THE JESUITS

DETECTED AND BRIEFLY EXPOSED;

SHORT ACCOUNT OF THEIR INSTITUTE;

B Y R. C. D A L L A S , E S Q.

L O N D O N :

G E O R G E C A N N I N G , M. P.

PREFACE.

NEW CONSPIRACY

A G A I N S T T H E J E S U I T S ,

INTRODUCTION.

CHAPTER I.

CHAPTER II.

CHAPTER III.

CHAPTER IV.

L E T T E R S

C L E R I C U S.

L E T T E R S

CLERICUS TO LAICUS.

LETTER I.

LETTER II.

LETTER III.

LETTER IV.

LETTER V.

A P P E N D I X ;

T H E B U L L O F C L E M E N T X I I I ,

JUDGMENT OF THE BISHOPS OF FRANCE,

APPENDIX.

No. I.

No. II.

T H E E N D.

NOTES

THE FULL PROJECT GUTENBERG LICENSE