Chapter II (2)

"It is very kind, it is very kind of you to be so careful of my person
and my kingdom. I know your meaning perfectly; but you do not know
mine. You have started difficulties, to {73} your thinking, very great
and considerable, and little know, that I have thought on and
considered them all these eight or nine years past; and that the best
resolutions for the time to come are taken from reflections on things
past, which I am acquainted with better than any person whatever. You
set up for mighty statesmen, and understand state affairs no more than
I do the drawing the report of a cause. As to the affair of Poissy[31]
things would have gone much better for the catholics, if all of you had
acted your part as well as a Jesuit or two, who, very luckily, happened
to be there. There clearly appeared, not the ambition, but the
abilities of the Jesuits; and I do not understand how you can make
those ambitious, who refuse dignities and prelacies, and make a vow to
God never to aspire to any preferment; and, who seek nothing in this
world besides serving all that are willing to employ them, without any
{74} view of interest or recompence. If the name of Jesuit displease
you, why not find fault with those, who stile themselves religious of
the Trinity; why not say, that your daughters are as much religious as
the nuns, called here daughters of God[32]; and that you are as much of
my order of the Holy Ghost as my knights and myself? For my part, I
would as soon, or rather, be called Jesuit, than Augustinian or
Dominican. As to the churchmen, who except against them, ignorance has
always borne a grudge to learning; and I observed, when I began to
speak of re-establishing the Jesuits, that two sorts of persons opposed
this design; those of the pretended reformed religion, and churchmen of
irregular conduct, which has gained them still greater credit and
reputation. If the Sorbonne you talk of has condemned them, it was,
quite like you, without knowing them; and, if the old Sorbonne would
not own them out of jealousy, the new Sorbonne is very proud of, and
esteems them; if {75} they were not fixed in France before, God has
reserved for me the honour, which indeed I esteem a favour, of settling
them; and, if they were only provisionally admitted heretofore, they
shall henceforward have a permanent settlement, both by edict and
arret. The will of my predecessors kept them here, mine shall establish
them. The university opposed them, either because they excelled others
(witness the vast concourse of scholars to their colleges), or because
they were not incorporated in the university, which will not be refused
when I order it; and when I shall see that they stand in need of being
better regulated. You say, that the greatest men of your parliament
have learned nothing from them: if the oldest are the most learned, you
are certainly right; they had ended their studies before the Jesuits
had opened their schools. Other parliaments, I am credibly informed, do
not say so; nor, indeed, does all yours. They teach better than others;
that is the true reason why, since their absence, your University is
quite abandoned, and students {76} flock after these masters to Douay,
and other places, within and without my kingdom. You say, they engage
the brightest geniuses, they examine and pick out the best for their
society: I commend them for it. When I raise troops, I chuse those who
are likely to turn out the best soldiers. Were there no room for favour
amongst you, would you admit any, but what were worthy of being
members, and of having a seat in your parliament? I heartily wish you
received such only as are quite deserving, and that virtue were always
the badge and distinctive mark in posts of honour. If the Jesuits
served the public with ignorant masters and preachers, you would
despise them; and now, that they employ in your service men of wit and
capacity, you are not pleased. As to the great estates, you say, they
possessed, it is all calumny and imposture; and I very well know, by
the account of the estates re-annexed to the crown, that seven or eight
masters could not be maintained at Bourges and Lyons; whereas, when the
Jesuits were there, they were thirty or forty {77} in number. But
should there be any difficulty in this respect, I have provided against
it in my edict. To call them a _factious society_, for being concerned
in the _league_, is a reproach that falls only on the times. They
thought they did well: many others were concerned, with whom they were
mistaken and deluded; and they own now, that they have found my
intentions quite contrary to what they had preconceived. But, I am
inclined to believe, they acted with less malice than others, and that
the same disposition, with the favours they receive from me, will make
them as affectionate to me, even more so, than they ever were to the
_league_. It is objected, they get footing in cities and towns by all
means they can: so do others: I myself got into my kingdom as well as I
could. It must be owned, that, with their wonderful patience and
regular way of life, they may compass what they will; and _their great
care not to change or alter any thing in their institute will be the
cause of their stability and long continuance_. The vow of obedience
they make {78} to the pope will not subject them more to his will, than
the oath of allegiance they have taken to me will bind them not to
undertake any thing against their natural sovereign. But their vow does
not extend to every thing, as is vainly pretended; they only make a vow
of obeying the pope, when he is pleased to send them to labour for the
encouragement of infidels; and, in fact, the Indies are converted by
them. As to the opinion of the pope, I know he esteems them greatly; so
do I. But you do not tell me, that the pope was upon the point of
seizing cardinal Bellarmine's Works, at Rome, for not allowing him as
great an extent of jurisdiction as other divines do: and you studiously
conceal what the Jesuits have lately maintained, that, though the pope
could not err, Clement might be mistaken. Upon the whole, I am
persuaded, that they say no more than others of the papal authority;
and that, if opinions are to be tried, you must quarrel with those of
the catholic church. It is said, that the king of Spain employs
Jesuits; I tell you, that I am {79} determined to do the same; why
should France fare worse than Spain? Since all the world judges them
useful to the public, let me tell you, I think them necessary to my
kingdom. As to the doctrine, imputed to them, of withdrawing churchmen
from obedience to sovereigns, or teaching subjects to attempt on their
lives, it is proper to see, on one side, what they say, and, on the
other, what they teach their scholars. What convinces me there is no
such thing is, that, for these thirty years past, that they have taught
in France, above fifty thousand scholars have been brought up in their
colleges, have conversed and lived with them, and not one has yet been
found, in that vast number, who pretends to have heard any such
discourse among them, or any thing coming up to the doctrine with which
they are reproached. What is more, ask protestant ministers, that have
lived and studied under them, how the Jesuits live: to be sure, they
will not spare them, were it only to justify their leaving the society.
I know the question has been put to many, and nothing {80} could ever
be got from them, but that their conduct and morals were without
exception. Barriere was not encouraged, as you pretend, by any Jesuit.
The first notice of that attempt I had from a Jesuit: another told him,
he would be damned if he dared to go upon any such design. Chatel never
accused them, nor could any torments extort any charge against Varade,
or any other Jesuit. If any one had been accused, how came you to spare
him? The other Jesuit, that was seized, was taken up on account of some
printed papers found in his chamber. After all, though a Jesuit had
done that foul deed, which I am resolved to forget, must all the
Jesuits suffer, must all the apostles be banished for one Judas? At
that time God was pleased to humble and to save me, for which I give
him thanks: he teaches me to forgive all offences; and I have done it,
freely and willingly, for his sake. I pray daily for my enemies; so far
am I from remembering what is past, as you advise me to do, not very
like good Christians, for which I do not thank you. {81} The Jesuits
are natives of my kingdom, and born my subjects; I will not harbour any
suspicion against those whom their birth has placed under my
government; and, if there should be any danger of their communicating
my secrets to the enemies of France, I will take care to let them know
only what I think fit. Let me manage this affair; I have gone through
many others much more difficult: and now I charge you to think of
nothing farther, than doing what I bid and command you to do."

With such a speech in existence, is it not a disgrace to any man to cite against the society the remonstrance that gave occasion to it? I have done, then, with this writer's impure and disgraceful authorities; and I should here proceed immediately to the respectable, the noble, the brilliant list of authorities in favour of the Jesuits, but that I feel it proper previously to notice another attack upon them, from a very unexpected quarter, from one whom we are almost compelled to consider as an 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 laceres et brules, 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 meurtriere et abominable, non-seulement contre la surete de la vie des citoyens, mais meme contre celle des personnes sacrees 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 Caesar, 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 ete 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 abbe Proyart, author of a work entitled, _Louis XVI dethrone 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 II, OF RUSSIA.

Catherine, when at Mohiloff, found, that the people of that part of her dominions professed the catholic religion, and that they were very much attached to the order of Jesuits. She appointed a catholic archbishop of Mohiloff, and gave him a Jesuit as a coadjutor. She permitted, at the same time, the establishment of a seminary of Jesuits, the direction of which was confided to father Gabriel Denkiewitz, appointed vicar-general of his order. In the year 1783, she sent the archbishop of Mohiloff's coadjutor, whose name was Benelawski, to Rome, as minister from the court of Russia, who carried a letter from her to Pius VI, demanding the re-establishment of the society of Jesuits, which, though at the time disavowed at Petersburgh, through deference to the Greek Christians, was actually written with her own hand. The following passages are extracted from the letter: "I know, that your holiness is under 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.

CLEMENT XIII.