LETTER I.
Jesuitæ, qui se maxime nobis opponunt, aut necandi, aut si hoc commodè fieri non potest, ejiciendi, aut certe mendaciis et calumniis opp imendi sunt.—Calv. Axiom.—Vide Becan. tom. i, opusc. xvii, aphor. 15[[95]].
In God's name, Laicus, who are you, and what is your aim? The order of Jesuits, you tell us, has been totally abolished. Every person
of moderate information knows, that to accomplish that abolition, which was not total, all the artifices of calumny were exhausted. Neither Calvin, nor Le Courayer, nor even Laicus, could have added a mite to the torrent of abuse of Jesuits, which inundated Europe about fifty years ago, when the complete overthrow of that order was finally planned and determined. The Jesuits fell; and within a few years Rome was sacked and pillaged; two successive pontiffs were lodged in dungeons; every French infidel, every fanatical gospeller throughout Europe, exulted in the discomfiture of the scarlet whore; the papacy was, on every side, pronounced to be extinct. But, behold, by the unerring operation of Providence, the papacy is again seated on the seven hills, and its old champions, the Jesuits, are once more called forth to sustain the assaults of calumny. But what inept calumny, what
falsehoods, what inconsistencies, what contradictions, have you, Laicus, raked together, to stifle the new life, which they are only beginning to enjoy! Thus in days of old conspired the Jewish pharisees to murder Lazarus, as soon as the Son of God had raised him from the tomb.—John xii, 10. Consider, Sir—you need not be so precipitate. Many years must yet pass, many powers must concur, to recruit, to drill, to marshal a new body of Jesuits, capable of achieving the mischief, which your virulent declamation imputes to their predecessors. I have spent some years of my life in foreign countries; I there read every libel against the Jesuits, that came in my way; but I never found one so perfectly contemptible as your two tottering columns in the Times, newspaper, of January the 27th. They will not support either themselves, or the credit of the publication which has received them. And yet this infamous trash must be noticed, because it is calculated to do harm. I say again, who are you? Tell me, if you dare. If you have written truth, why should you skulk
from the light? But, alas! Omnis, qui male agit, odit lucem.—John iii, 20.
I need not ask again, what is your aim? Your two columns plainly tell it. It is not to convey information to discerning men; it is to poison the minds of the undiscriminating vulgar; it is to raise a popular cry, which, in this country, has more than once either intimidated virtuous ministers, or favoured the projects of bad ones. There is, you know it, even in this enlightened nation, a mass of fanaticism and bigotry, which may easily be called into action. If you are forty-five years old, you may remember, that, in 1780, one extravagant religionist made the streets stream with blood, and nearly wrapped the capital in flames. If you have read history, you know that the projectors of the exclusion bill found the profligacy of Titus Oates quite sufficient to raise an enormous ferment throughout the nation, and to procure the legal murder of twenty harmless Jesuits, gentlemen and priests. You distinctly disclaim the
merit of novelty. Right: you dare not deviate an inch from the old beaten track of inflammatory calumny and defamation. Your whole tale has been long prepared and fashioned to your hands. Nothing in it is yours, but the inconsistencies, contradictions, and scurrilous language, with which you have pieced it together. It is copied from one or more of the ten thousand libels, which overspread Europe fifty years ago, when the confederate ministers of the catholic courts, the Pombals, the Choiseuls, the Arandas, the Tanuccis, the Caunitzes, the Spinellis, the Marefoschis, &c. had finally determined to assassinate the whole body of the Jesuits. I have read almost every word of your two flimsy columns in the old Requisitoires, Comptes Rendus, and Arrêts of the French parliaments, from which I traced it to the Jansenists, to the Calvinists, to the Tuba Magna, to Scioppius, to Hospinian, to the Monarchia Solipsorum, and to the lying Monita Secreta: yet this last is the only one of your foul sources, that you have the hardiness to cite, probably because you know it to be
the most malicious. It shall be specially noticed hereafter. Now all this was long ago refuted to the satisfaction of dispassionate men: even many of the French parliamentarians saw cause to regret their own deed. I have heard several of their leading men lament it, and some of them fairly acknowledge the infamy of the slander, which their courts had employed to effect it. Il falloit denigrer les Jesuites; car sans cela, les parlemens n'en seroient jamais venus à bout, were the words used by the late amiable and learned president Des Brosses in my hearing. But you, Sir, are not content to suck in the black bile of the old Gallic magistrates; you emulate the savage cruelty of Nero towards the primitive Christians—you dress up your Jesuits in the semblance of wild beasts, to entice your dogs to devour them.
And could you not, then, see the inconsistency of representing the whole body of Jesuits, as men systematically trained to every vice and crime, and of acknowledging, at the same time,
that they governed the consciences of all monarchs, and of all their grandees; that they ruled courts; that they were every where trusted, respected, and employed? They enjoyed this credit during two hundred years, in all catholic countries, and, if we must believe you, in all countries not professedly catholic, that is, in protestant countries; and yet you require us to admit, that all the sovereigns, prelates, and magistrates of those nations, had neither the discernment to discover, nor the power to control the course of their wickedness. Indeed, Sir, the best refutation of your fable would be, a comparison of the state of religion, morality, order, and subordination in catholic countries, while Jesuits, as you tell us, were their teachers, preachers, and directors, with the face of public morals, after their enemies had accomplished their destruction. Another complete refutation of your inconsistent charge arises from the remarkable circumstance, that, in all the countries where Jesuits were consigned to jails, exile, infamy, and beggary, not a crime could be alleged or
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.
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
admitted fact stands in direct contradiction to that other crimination, where you execrate their government, as perfect and unexampled despotism? It is not possible, that a large body of well educated men should be enamoured of slavery. It is a truth, that the government of the Jesuits was the most gentle, and yet the most effective, that ever existed; and this, if you had sense to comprehend it, arose in a great measure from the perfection of their obedience. Let this suffice for your inconsistencies.
Among your direct falsehoods, I rank your assertion, that their constitutions were framed by Laines and Acquaviva, both generals of the society: that the former was the author of your favourite libel, the Monita Secreta, and that it was brought to light at the end of the seventeenth century. This point shall be resumed. To mention all your falsehoods, I must copy your two columns: but I cannot omit arraigning you as a shameless impostor, for your assertion in Italics, that the Jesuits had obtained from
the holy see a special licence to trade. In fact, there never was a more idle calumny, than that Jesuits ruled the papal court, and possessed enormous wealth. It was an object of laughter even with those who re-echoed the tale in the loudest tone. The Jesuits never possessed a single post in the Roman court, to which power and influence were attached. Some of these belonged to more ancient orders; and, in those orders, the Jesuits generally found rivals and opponents. Not having the sources of power, they never possessed any other influence, either at Rome or elsewhere, than that which virtue and abilities occasionally give to individuals.
To these enormous, I would rather say abnormous, misshapen lies, I add, in finishing, your assertion, that the Jesuits took part in every intrigue, in every revolution. You are not ignorant, it seems, that revolutions are always preceded by intrigues. Now, Laicus, you must patiently submit to be branded with the title of SPLENDIDE MENDAX, until you produce
undeniable proof, that the Jesuits were concerned in the intrigues, which produced the several revolutions of Denmark, Sweden, and Russia, of the United Provinces in 1570, of Portugal in 1640, of England in the same year, and again in 1688, and, more recently, in the revolution, which wrested the American States from the British crown. I will rub off the splendide mendax from your forehead when you prove, that any one of these revolutions was contrived, or conducted, by Jesuits. It is a remarkable circumstance, that, amidst the fiercest rage of unceasing wars, the two great rival houses of Bourbon and Austria vied with each other in esteem and affection for the Jesuits. During the reigns of Philip II, and his three immediate successors in Spain; during the reigns of Maximilian, of the three Ferdinands, and Leopold, in Germany; during the reigns of Henry IV, and of the three Louises, who succeeded him, in France, the Jesuits obtained their most distinguished settlements in those various kingdoms. If ever a history of the
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.