The New Conspiracy Against the Jesuits Detected and Briefly Exposed Part 5

LETTER I.

_Jesuitae, qui se maxime n.o.bis opponunt, aut necandi, aut si hoc commode fieri non potest, ejiciendi, aut certe mendaciis et calumniis opp imendi sunt._--Calv. Axiom.--Vide Becan. tom. i, opusc. xvii, aphor.

15[95].

In G.o.d's name, Laicus, who are you, and what is your aim? The order of Jesuits, you tell us, has been _totally abolished_. Every person {262} of moderate information knows, that to accomplish that abolition, which was not total, all the artifices of calumny were exhausted. Neither Calvin, nor Le Courayer, nor even Laicus, could have added a mite to the torrent of abuse of Jesuits, which inundated Europe about fifty years ago, when the complete overthrow of that order was finally planned and determined. The Jesuits fell; and within a few years Rome was sacked and pillaged; two successive pontiffs were lodged in dungeons; every French infidel, every fanatical gospeller throughout Europe, exulted in the discomfiture of the scarlet wh.o.r.e; the papacy was, on every side, p.r.o.nounced to be extinct.

But, behold, by the unerring operation of Providence, the papacy is again seated on the seven hills, and its old champions, the Jesuits, are once more called forth to sustain the a.s.saults of calumny. But what inept calumny, what {263} falsehoods, what inconsistencies, what contradictions, have you, Laicus, raked together, to stifle the new life, which they are only beginning to enjoy! Thus in days of old conspired the Jewish pharisees to murder Lazarus, as soon as the Son of G.o.d had raised him from the tomb.--John xii, 10. Consider, Sir--you need not be so precipitate. Many years must yet pa.s.s, many powers must concur, to recruit, to drill, to marshal a new body of Jesuits, capable of achieving the mischief, which your virulent declamation imputes to their predecessors. I have spent some years of my life in foreign countries; I there read every libel against the Jesuits, that came in my way; but I never found one so perfectly contemptible as your two tottering columns in the TIMES, newspaper, of January the 27th. They will not support either themselves, or the credit of the publication which has received them. And yet this infamous trash must be noticed, because it is calculated to do harm. I say again, who are you?

Tell me, if you dare. If you have written truth, why should you skulk {264} from the light? But, alas! _Omnis, qui male agit, odit lucem._--John iii, 20.

I need not ask again, what is your aim? Your two columns plainly tell it.

It is not to convey information to discerning men; it is to poison the minds of the undiscriminating vulgar; it is to raise a popular cry, which, in this country, has more than once either intimidated virtuous ministers, or favoured the projects of bad ones. There is, you know it, even in this enlightened nation, a ma.s.s of fanaticism and bigotry, which may easily be called into action. If you are forty-five years old, you may remember, that, in 1780, one extravagant religionist made the streets stream with blood, and nearly wrapped the capital in flames. If you have read history, you know that the projectors of the _exclusion bill_ found the profligacy of t.i.tus Oates quite sufficient to raise an enormous ferment throughout the nation, and to procure the legal murder of twenty harmless Jesuits, gentlemen and priests. You distinctly disclaim the {265} merit of novelty.

Right: you dare not deviate an inch from the old beaten track of inflammatory calumny and defamation. Your whole tale has been long prepared and fashioned to your hands. Nothing in it is yours, but the inconsistencies, contradictions, and scurrilous language, with which you have pieced it together. It is copied from one or more of the ten thousand libels, which overspread Europe fifty years ago, when the confederate ministers of the catholic courts, the Pombals, the Choiseuls, the Arandas, the Tanuccis, the Caunitzes, the Spinellis, the Marefoschis, &c. had finally determined to a.s.sa.s.sinate the whole body of the Jesuits. I have read almost every word of your two flimsy columns in the old _Requisitoires_, _Comptes Rendus_, and _Arrets_ of the French parliaments, from which I traced it to the Jansenists, to the Calvinists, to the _Tuba Magna_, to Scioppius, to Hospinian, to the _Monarchia Solipsorum_, and to the lying _Monita Secreta_: yet this last is the only one of your foul sources, that you have the hardiness to cite, probably because you know it to be {266} the most malicious. It shall be specially noticed hereafter.

Now all this was long ago refuted to the satisfaction of dispa.s.sionate men: even many of the French parliamentarians saw cause to regret their own deed. I have heard several of their leading men lament it, and some of them fairly acknowledge the _infamy_ of the slander, which their courts had employed to effect it. _Il falloit_ denigrer _les Jesuites; car sans cela, les parlemens n'en seroient jamais venus a bout_, were the words used by the late amiable and learned president Des Brosses in my hearing. But you, Sir, are not content to suck in the black bile of the old Gallic magistrates; you emulate the savage cruelty of Nero towards the primitive Christians--you dress up your Jesuits in the semblance of wild beasts, to entice your dogs to devour them.

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

Horrid to tell! they were all everywhere condemned, everywhere punished unheard, untried. This is a fact of public notoriety[96].

It is curious to observe, how your accusations turn to the credit of the Jesuits. The strict obedience, which was enjoined and practised in their society, is with you their crime; with every man of sense, it is their commendation. It was, in fact, the bond, which cemented them together, which supplied the place of monastic restrictions, incompatible with their various duties. Without it, they would soon have fallen into disorder, they would have been contemned; but they would not have been employed, nor trusted, nor even persecuted. {269} Another of their crimes is their _ardent attachment to their order_. I allow it was singular. They had a tender feeling for the good reputation of their society, and they all well understood, that it depended upon the good conduct of every individual[97].

But who cannot see, that this {270} admitted fact stands in direct contradiction to that other crimination, where you execrate their government, as _perfect and unexampled despotism_? It is not possible, that a large body of well educated men should be enamoured of slavery. It is a truth, that the government of the Jesuits was the most gentle, and yet the most effective, that ever existed; and this, if you had sense to comprehend it, arose in a great measure from the perfection of their obedience. Let this suffice for your inconsistencies.

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

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

_Flebis, et insignis tota cantaberis urbe_.

HOR. Sat. i, l. 2.

Mean time your antagonist is

CLERICUS.

{274}

LETTER II.

SIR;

In my last, I engaged myself to say a word on your _Monita Secreta_. This rancid libel, indeed, refutes itself. No man of common sense will allow even the possibility of a large body of men being governed, or of attaining credit and power by such absurd maxims, under the inspection of so many powerful princes, wise ministers, and learned prelates. Certainly these lords of church and state could not be so blind, during one hundred and fifty years, as to tolerate, to cherish a gang of thieves, and to intrust to them the public instruction of the people, and the education of youth.

Such a set of maxims would not have held together a band of professed forgers or swindlers, during a single {275} year. And the contriver of them, you tell us, was Laines, whom you incautiously allow to have been a man of _superior abilities in the science of government_. The folly of imputing such trash to Laines must appear evident to all who know, that he was one of the most distinguished divines and preachers of his age; that he was deputed, in three different pontificates, as pontifical theologian to the council of Trent; that his harangues were considered almost as oracular by the fathers of that venerable a.s.sembly; that his manners were as saintly as his learning was extensive, that he was specially selected by Pius IV to confute the Hugonots in the conference at Poissy; that, on his return from that emba.s.sy, he refused the dignity of cardinal, with which the pope offered to distinguish his eminent merit; and, that he ended his career in 1565, seven years after he had been elected general of the young society.

Now, say, what time could a man so busied in theological and missionary labours in Italy and France, command to conduct commercial {276} speculations in India, as you in your odious libel a.s.sert?

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

The maxims of Xavier and Laines, consigned in your _Monita Secreta_, were first brought to light, you tell us, at the close of the seventeenth century, about one hundred and forty years after the decease of the supposed author; and yet you have not a shadow of proof to allege, that they {277} made any sensation in the world; that any prince, prelate, or magistrate, that any man whatever gave credit to them. Would you know, Sir, the origin of your despicable _Monita_? Not in the days of Laines, not at the close, but in the early years of the seventeenth century, a Jesuit was dismissed with ignominy from the society in Poland, an uncommon circ.u.mstance but judged due to his misconduct. The walls of the city of Cracow were soon covered with sheets of revengeful insults; and, in the year 1616, this outcast of the society published his fabricated _Secreta Monita_, with a view to cover his own disgrace, or to gratify his revenge.

"Whether he attained either of these objects," says the elegant historian, Cordara (a name well known in the republic of letters), "I cannot determine; but certain it is, nothing was ever more ineptly silly, than this work: _Quo opere, ut modeste dicam, nihil ineptius._"--Vid. Cordara, Hist. Soc. Jes. page 29. Cordara would have made an exception in favour of Laicus, if he had lived to read {278} his Letters in the Times. The libel, however, though condemned and prohibited at Rome by the Congregation of the Index on the 10th of May, 1616, was industriously propagated, meeting every where its merited contempt. It was victoriously refuted by Gretser, who died in 1625, seventy-five years before the work was discovered, if the admirable Laicus is to be believed. This refutation, which was not wanted, may be read in Gretser's works, edit. of Ratisbon, 1634[98].

{279}

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

It is not possible to dwell upon all the wilful falsehoods of the second Letter, with the same extent which I have given to the fable of the _Monita_. The power of the general of the Jesuits is nicely ascertained in the volumes of the Inst.i.tute; and, indeed, a true account of it cannot be drawn from any other source. Now I a.s.sert, that every word written upon it in the Inst.i.tute, stands directly in contradiction to your description of it in your second Letter. It was said of an ancient painter, _Nulla dies sine linea_: I say of your wild rant, _Nulla linea sine mendacio_. In the books of the Inst.i.tute, the general's power is balanced and checked in a stile, that has been admired by the deepest men in the science of legislation, cardinal Richelieu and others; and all this has been repeatedly sanctioned, confirmed, and extolled by popes, who, according to you, were at once governed and opposed, ruled and thwarted, overswayed and disobeyed, and sometimes murdered by Jesuits. What idiots these popes must have been! In what chapter of the Inst.i.tute did {282} Laicus discover the power or the practice of admitting men of all religions into the society?

Could men, of various religious persuasions have ever coalesced into one regular system of propagating exclusively the Roman catholic religion, which, as well as persecution of protestants and their own aggrandis.e.m.e.nt, you allow to have been at all times the main object of Jesuits? Who can believe, that _protestant Jesuits_ would ever have submitted to persecute protestants? Who can imagine unanimity of mind, heart, and action among men, who disagreed in the fundamental principle? In what historian, or in what tradition, has Laicus found, that pope Innocent XIII was murdered, or murdered by _Jesuits_? Strange, that the discovery of such a crime should have been reserved for Laicus, ninety-one years after the death of that pontiff[99]! Who, before Laicus, ever wrote, {283} that the a.s.sa.s.sin of Henry III of France was _instigated_ by Jesuits? Wait another number of the TIMES, Laicus will improve: he will roundly a.s.sure us, that the miserable Jacques Clement actually was a Jesuit. No man conversant in the history of France ever doubted of the civil wars of the sixteenth century having originated with the rebellious Hugonots; but no man before Laicus ever attributed all the horrors of that dismal period to Jesuits. The famous league opposed the succession of the Bourbons in the person of {284} Henry IV; and the whole guilt of their proceedings against Henry IV is exclusively ascribed to Jesuits. And yet this very monarch, whom Laicus calls _the greatest and best king of France_, was perhaps, of all men that ever wore a crown, the warmest friend and protector of the Jesuits.

Possibly I may be wrong in this a.s.sertion; because the glory of Henry IV, in this particular, is certainly rivalled, if not exceeded, by the ill.u.s.trious favour and protection afforded to the persecuted Jesuists by the late empress Catharine of Russia, and by the present magnanimous emperor Alexander. Henry IV condescended to refute in public the pa.s.sionate imputations of the president Harlay against the Jesuits. His son, Louis XIII, and his grandson, the famous Louis XIV, imitated his example, in their esteem of the society; and because this was undeniable, behold Laicus, by a bold effort of genius, has transformed the renowned monarch, Louis XIV, into a Jesuit professed of four vows. How a Frenchman must scout such ribaldry! But enough of these extravagancies. {285} In reading them, I began to suspect, that Laicus's aim might be to ridicule the revilers of Jesuits, by imputing to the latter things evidently false, clearly inconsistent, absolutely impossible. Thus, I well remember it, when the absurd tale of the Jesuit king Nicolas of Paraguay amused the Laicuses of the day, the writer of one of the Holland gazettes, in his description of that king's battle against the Spanish and Portuguese troops, endeavoured to turn the fable into ridicule by a.s.serting, that king Nicolas had displayed much bravery, and had fought until three capuchins were shot under him in the action. But I apprehend, that Laicus and his prompters do not rave merely for sport. Their real views will gradually appear: they are not quite unknown to

CLERICUS.

{286}

LETTER III.

SIR;

At the close of your first Letter, you promise to refer, in your next, to the evidences for the statements, which you have made. I was curious to see upon what historical evidence such a ma.s.s of forgeries could rest. In labouring through your second Letter, I discovered much intrinsic evidence, that you are a still improving adept in the art of bold and unsupported a.s.sertion, but not a shadow of proof, that your rants were ever believed by any man before yourself. The only authority cited in it is of one Collado, who a.s.serted, that the conduct of the Jesuits was the occasion of the abolition of Christianity in j.a.pan; but whoever has read the history of {287} Christianity in those islands will deny the position, upon grounds more certain than those on which it is advanced. The whole of your second Letter is no more than an unconnected congeries of the grossest impostures.

In my second I marked out a few; I shall presently indicate some others; and I shall leave my readers to determine, whether you have substantiated your first calumnies, only by the production of new ones.

I have searched your third Letter in quest of evidence, of proof, of historical support; and I find, that the two most prominent names in it are Prynne and De Thou. I may here remark, that it is highly illiberal and unjust to uphold imputations of guilt, even against the worst of culprits, solely upon the a.s.severations of their declared enemies; and, if these enemies stand otherwise convicted of malicious calumnies, this circ.u.mstance alone must go far towards the acquittal of the accused. Now, it is well known, {288} that Prynne and De Thou wrote in the most turbulent times, amidst the distractions and rage of civil wars, occasioned in England and in France by restless sectaries; that they were both inflamed with party rage, and never spared their adversaries. If, then, their testimony is to be admitted as irrefragable, in the present times, in one point, why not in another? If, without a shadow of proof, we must believe with Prynne and you, that the Irish ma.s.sacre and the British civil wars were to be imputed to Jesuits, and especially to Cuneus, the pope's nuncio, and cardinal Barberini (who, by the way, never were Jesuits), we must also believe every thing written by that foul mouthed lawyer against Charles I, against episcopacy, and against the famous archbishop Laud. But we know, that the fellow's ears were twice bored and cropped in the pillory for his defamatory libels, and that his cheeks were seared with the letters S. L.

(seditious libeller.) I believe my readers will agree, that the stigma might, with propriety, be transferred to the unblushing front of the retailer of his falsehoods. {289} Before I speak of De Thou, I will mention only a few of your insufferable fabrications, which hardly Prynne himself would have ventured to utter. 1. "In matters both of _faith_ and practice, the members of the society are bound to obey the society, and not the church[100]." In what part of their Inst.i.tute is this canon found? It was unknown to the council of Trent, and to the several popes, whose confirmation and commendation that Inst.i.tute obtained. 2. "They have invariably opposed episcopacy, and they have _repeatedly_ attacked the decrees of general councils, especially that of Trent[101]." It should seem, that, in a protestant country, _attacks_ upon catholic councils would not be deemed very enormous sins. But, since they have been _repeatedly_ committed by Jesuits, it would have been easy for Laicus to convict them, at least, in one instance. Why has it been omitted? 3. "The society has prisons, {290} independent of secular authority, in which refractory members are put to death; a _right_ which Laines obtained for them[102]."

Quere, from whom did he obtain it? From the pope? In what bullarium then may the grant be found? Did Jesuits ever attempt to use this _right_? Did secular sovereigns quietly acquiesce in such a glaring usurpation of their most undoubted right? Of what avail could such a privilege have been to the Jesuits, who always had the power to dismiss refractory members from their society, as they dismissed Jerom Zarowicz, Antonio de Dominis, abbe Raynal, and many others? Poor Laicus cannot answer one of these questions. He has disclaimed all pretension to novelty; he is satisfied with copying malignity; and, to the shame of the Encyclopedia Britannica, he has transcribed this impudent forgery from vol. ix of that work (_page_ 510, _art. Laines_), where, without a shadow of proof or of probability, it is roundly stated, that "Laines, {291} general of the Jesuits, procured from pope Paul IV the privilege of having prisons independent of the secular authority, in which they (the Jesuits) put to death refractory brethren."

4. "One peculiar object of the society is to direct and aid the operations of the Inquisition[103]." It is not easy to ascertain the precise source of this falsehood. Probably it is not borrowed from foreign libels, because, in all catholic countries, it was universally known, that Jesuits never had any concern in the administration, or proceedings, of the Inquisition. 5.

"The Jesuits usurped the sovereignty of Paraguay, and held the Indians in slavery[104]." This has been a thousand times said; and it has been as often demonstrated, to the satisfaction of impartial inquirers, that the Jesuits were the steady friends and defenders of the liberty of the Indians, and that the success of their missions in South America was a glorious triumph of {292} humanity and religion, hardly to be equalled in the history of the Christian church. 6. "They formed two conspiracies against king Joseph of Portugal, and his whole family[105]." In spite of the prepotency of the cruel minister Pombal, truth has prevailed, and the world remains convinced, that not even one conspiracy was ever formed against king Joseph of Portugal, either by Jesuits, or by any other persons. 7. "The Jesuits beheaded eighty Frenchmen and hung five hundred friars for maintaining the rights of Anthony king of Portugal, in the island of Tercera, where they had compelled him to take refuge, after having disposed of his crown[106]." All this is a blundering confusion of the adventures of the b.a.s.t.a.r.d Portuguese prince Antonio, prior of Crato, and of the history of king Alfonso, who, a hundred years later, was deposed and confined in the island of Tercera. Whoever has looked into Portuguese {293} history may remember, that Antonio's pretensions to the crown were settled, not by Jesuits, but by the duke of Alva, at the head of a Spanish army of twenty thousand men. He may have read, that several persons were executed in Tercera, for supporting Antonio's cause, by the commanders of a Spanish armament; but no man has read, that five hundred friars were put to death, or ever existed at one time, in the island of Tercera. Whatever the case may be, the Jesuits had no concern in what befel the pretender Antonio, or king Alfonso, or the poor friars of Tercera. 8. "The Jesuits deposed the grand duke of Muscovy with great bloodshed, for a creature of their own[107]." When did all this happen, and who was the grand duke?

Laicus will not easily answer these questions. 9. "A memoir of cardinal Noailles leaves no doubt of Louis XIV having taken the four vows of the Jesuits[108]." On this {294} point the policy of the Jesuits appears to have been defective. If they had sent good father Louis XIV to a foreign mission, for instance, to Canada or Brazil, in execution of his fourth vow, and had bestowed his crown upon some other creature of their own, as they had transferred that of poor king Anthony, probably they might have ruled Europe with less trouble. Father Louis XIV was not always disposed to be a submissive subject[109].

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

Sturges, where the profligacy of Elizabeth and her ministers, and the futility of the a.s.sa.s.sination-plots, with which they charged Jesuits and other priests, are evinced to demonstration. It is now time to think of De Thou.

This writer's character is well drawn by the learned professor of Lovain, Dr. Paquot:--_Thua.n.u.s audax nimium; hostis Jesuitarum imcabilis; calumniator Guisiorum; protestantium exscriptor, laudator, amicus; sedi apostolicae et_ {297} _synodo Tridentinae, totique rei catholicae parum aequus._ De Thou was fully animated with the general and prevalent spirit of the parliament of Paris, in which he held the rank of _president a mortier_; and this spirit led them at all times to advance their own importance, by favouring every party that opposed either the church or the crown. Their constant aim was to balance the power of the monarch, and to depress the spiritual authority of the holy see and the bishops. During the active administration of Louis XIV, they were confined to their proper functions of civil and criminal justice; but in the times, which preceded and followed that reign, they were leaguers, and favourers of the Hugonots, and abettors of the Fronde, and, lastly, open protectors of the Jansenists.

De Thou never publicly seceded from the catholic church; he was satisfied with insulting it. His abilities were great; the elegance of his style is engaging: but, as he wrote solely to favour the Hugonots, his narrations are compiled only upon their memoirs, or they are sports of his own {298} imagination. He professes to write the history only of his own times; and, consequently, his story rests upon his own credit, unsupported by vouchers: his _ipse dixit_ is the whole proof. He is wonderfully fond of detailing conspiracies against princes, and, in these fabulous tales, he completely sacrifices the dignity of the historian; he sinks into a romancer and a comedian. He leads his conspirator through cities and provinces, to gather a.s.sociates; the pope, or the king of Spain, or some cardinal, directs the plot; he has at his finger-ends the closest secrets of the conspiracy; he recites letters, which were never written; and, most commonly, Jesuits, but sometimes Dominicans, even Capuchins, are his princ.i.p.al actors. These men give antic.i.p.ated absolution to the a.s.sa.s.sin; they promise him the crown and palm of martyrdom; they impart to him the pope's benediction; and, to use your odious cant, they give him the sacrament upon it. All this is sweet reading to bigoted sectaries; and, with them, the word of De Thou is paramount to demonstrative proof. {299}

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

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

It is remarkable, that while the Jesuits were thus insulted by Prynnes and De Thous, and their numerous disciples, they were everywhere befriended by princes and states, who freighted them to foreign missions at the public expense, and who multiplied their colleges and settlements throughout Europe, in which they quietly a.s.sisted the clergy in the functions of religion, and successfully conducted those schools, which our famous Bacon so much admired: _Consule scholas Jesuitarum_, is his well known text; _nihil enim quod in usum venit, his melius_.--De dign. et augm. Scient. l.

6. He had already said (l. 1) of the Jesuits, "_Quorum c.u.m intueor industriam solertiamque, tam in doctrina excolenda, quam in moribus informandis, illud {302} occurrit Agesilai de Pharnabaso: Talis c.u.m sis, utinam nostor esses_."

The testimony of Bacon overbalances ten thousand Encyclopedists, and all their servile transcribers. To cover them with confusion, I finish with citing two of the most celebrated names, that have ever graced any of the various sects, known by the common appellation of protestants--I mean the great Grotius and Leibnitz. The latter maintained a constant correspondence with Jesuits, even with the missioners in China. His letters, which yet exist, prove that he was, and that he gloried in being, their friend; that he rejoiced in their successes, and was grieved by their afflictions and sufferings. The Latin text, which I would wish to transcribe from the learned Grotius, is rather long, and it would be enervated by translation.

(See Grotius Hist. 1. iii, p. 273. edit. Amstelod. an. 1658.) Here he employs the nervous style of Tacitus, to describe the origin of the Jesuits, the purity of their morals, their zeal to propagate {303} Christianity, to instruct youth, the respect which they had justly acquired, their disinterestedness, their prudence in commanding, their fidelity in obeying, their moderation in all their dealings, their progress and increase, &c. &c. "_Mores inculpatos, bonas artes, magna in vulgum auctoritas ob vitae sanctimoniam_.--_Sapienter imperant, fideliter parent.--Novissimi omnium, sectas priores fama vicere, hoc ipso caeteris invisi.--Medii foedum inter obsequium et tristem arrogantiam, nec fugiunt hominum vitia, nec sequuntur_, &c."

You may hear once more from

CLERICUS.

{304}