Chapter II (1)

_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._

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 Dolle, 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} _Re__ponse 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].

{46}

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 Majeste," 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]."

{53}

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 a 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'iniquite de leurs peres jusqu'a la troisieme et la quatrieme generation_.

{64}

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 (haec) ita sint dicta ut communi sententiae 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 Peches" 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 Proces contre les Jesuites," "Idee 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.