[19a] Neal gives the following curious extract from a letter from an English Jesuit to the Rector of the College at Brussels:—“I cannot choose but laugh to see how some of our own coat have accoutred themselves; and it is admirable how in speech and gesture they act the Puritans. The Cambridge scholars, to their woful experience, shall see we can act the Puritans a little better than they have done the Jesuits. They have abused our sacred patron in jest, but we will make them smart for it in earnest.”—Neal’s “Puritans,” vol. i., p. 515.
[20] The following circumstance was recently mentioned to the author by the Rev. Hugh Stowell:—A gentleman named Bridge settled at Salford with three daughters. He appeared to be an intelligent and active man, and being a decided Conservative, was, after a time, made Secretary to the Manchester Conservative Association. From that time there was reason to believe that the plans of the Association were betrayed, when one morning another gentleman named Bridge, also residing in Salford Crescent, whose Christian name commenced with the same initial as that of the other, received a letter from the College of Jesuits at Rome, giving him full directions as to the manner in which he should conduct the business of the Association. The Mr. Bridge who received it forwarded it to his neighbour, and the Conservative Secretary disappeared from Salford Crescent that afternoon.
[24] “Pilgrimage to Rome,” chap. vii.
[25] Primum ac Generate Examen, chap. IV., §§ 9, 10,11, 12.
[26] Examen, chap. IV., § 30.
[27] Taylor’s Loyola.
[29] In the translation the word “white” is most ingeniously substituted for “black” in flat contradiction both to the sense and to the Latin. The sentiment as really expressed was probably considered too atrocious for the honesty of the English character.
[30] Pilgrimage to Rome.
[31] Part VI., cap. i., §. 1.
[32] The reader will see in a moment that the translation given above is not correct, according to the ordinary rules of the Latin language. The words “obligare ad aliquid” mean “to oblige a person to do a thing,” and so the author of the Constitutions has employed them in the 3d chap. and 5th sec. of the “Examen,” where the expression, “Obligare ad matrimonium,” is clearly “to oblige to marry.” The translation, therefore, which was given in the first edition, viz., “can lead to an obligation to sin mortal or venial,” is undoubtedly correct. But there are passages in the book, and in some other scholastic authors, in which the phrase, “obligatio ad peccatum,” is employed to convey the idea that the obligation is of such a character as to render disobedience a sin; and as it is possible that the phrase may be so employed in this passage, I have given the version which the friends of the Society desire. I cannot, however, think that the ordinary rules of scholarship are to be wholly set aside, or the real meaning of the words excluded altogether from the translation; and I am confirmed in this opinion by the reference to the decree in the index of a copy recently procured, which was published at Rome in the College of the Society, in the year A.D. 1615, and which may be supposed to convey the true meaning of the Constitution. In this index the passage is referred to in the following words: “Superiores possunt obligare ad peccatum in virtute obedientiæ, quando id multum conveniat.” The natural antecedent of the “id” is clearly “peccatum,” in which case the translation must be, “The Superiors may oblige to sin in virtue of obedience, when it (the sin) is particularly convenient.” If this be not the meaning, what occasion would there be for the “multum conveniat?” But, translated either way, the decree is so bad, that the question is scarcely worth discussion.