History of the Jesuits: Their origin, progress, doctrines, and designs

by G. B. Nicolini

The abuses poured upon her by priests and Jesuits were most revolting and insulting. Without referring to ancient writers, we shall quote a passage from Crétineau, a writer of the present civilised and tolerant age, that our readers may have an idea of what must have been the scurrility of those times of fanaticism and intestine commotions. “The Holy See,” says the French historian, “had frequently cursed the heiress and daughter of Henry VIII. The Catholics, on the other hand, having penetrated, along with all England, into her licentious and voluptuous private life, refused to salute the mistress of Leicester with the name of maiden queen, to worship her caprices, or to applaud her hypocritical passions.”[133]

Nor were the Roman Catholics merely contented with attacking Elizabeth by words—their deeds were yet more criminal. Long before this, Allen solicited the General of the Jesuits to establish a house in England. But it seems that the General and the Pope were waiting their own time, and that they did not resolve till the year 1579 to grace Great Britain with a permanent Jesuitical establishment. When this resolution was made known, the most distinguished members of the Society implored, on their knees (as it is reported), to be sent to England to brave the persecutions of Elizabeth; Mercurianus told them, however, that English Jesuits should be preferred for this mission. In consequence of this declaration, Fathers Campion and Parson were chosen to head the mission, which was composed of thirteen members.[134] It arrived at the sea-coast of France, about the month of June 1580. Campion and Parson were both fellows of Oxford University, and not the least among its professors and tutors. It seems that both of them were Catholics at heart, though they pretended to be Protestants. The Jesuits affirm that Parson was dismissed the University because of his Catholic sentiments, while the other party assigns his immoral conduct as the reason. Both took the oath; both, we are assured, repented it all their lives. Both left the university, and after various vicissitudes, and the necessary probation, were received among the sons of Loyola. As we may believe, Cecil’s police knew almost all the movements of these self-invited visitors. Their intended landing in England was announced to all the authorities, their persons were carefully described, and orders were given for arresting them the moment they put foot on shore. But all was to no purpose. The Jesuits eluded every vigilance, and Father Parson, upon arriving at Dover, played to the officer who had the charge of examining the passengers, a trick that would shame any modern Robert Macaire. He gave out that he was a captain returning from Flanders; and being dressed suitably to the character assumed, so well did he perform his part, that the inspecting officer received him with every species of civility and courtesy, shook hands with him, and promised, moreover, to shew every attention to one of the captain’s merchant friends, who, as that impostor intimated, was expected every day from the Continent, and who proved to be no other than Father Campion. When the latter arrived in London, Parson was on the banks of the Thames to receive him, and saluted and cheered him with the air of one meeting a long absent friend, so that no one could have suspected that all was an artifice and a trick.[135]

The Jesuits, once in England, lost no time in commencing operations. A meeting of all the missionaries and secular priests was summoned. Parson presided. He was too cunning to declare publicly the end of their mission, as he did not wish to frighten the timid with the announcement of some dangerous enterprise. He disclaimed all political objects, and said that he only aimed at the conversion of England in co-operation with the secular priests; and swore that this was his only intention.[136] But then appealing to a decree of the Council of Trent, he forbade the Catholics to attend divine service in Protestant churches, and recommended strict nonconformity. In the company of the more faithful, he inveighed most bitterly against the queen, and pointed out with what ease she might be dethroned, by the assistance of the King of Spain and the Pope. Such exhortations as this caused a great ferment among the Roman Catholics.

“Swarms of Jesuits and Papists (from the seminaries of Rome and Rheims), impelled by religious enthusiasm, sedulously cultivated for that very purpose, and desirous of returning to their own country, were constantly pouring into the kingdom.”[137] Parson, who was the Provincial, guided all their movements, and himself went from place to place to excite the worst passions of man’s nature in the breasts of those who sought him, as their spiritual father, to confer peace and consolation. A great stir soon became visible among the Roman Catholics. People talked of nothing else than conspiracy and revolt. Sinister rumours were afloat, and acquired new strength from day to day, as is always the case in times of excitement, when some strange idea always pervades the minds of the multitude. It was now the general belief throughout England that every Roman Catholic was a traitor, and at the bidding of the priests was ready to become an assassin. A general massacre of the Protestants by the Papists, assisted by the invasion of a foreign power, was talked of as a matter of more than probable occurrence. Above all, Elizabeth—the beloved queen—the idol of the people—was in danger every moment of being murdered. Books were daily printed denouncing more or less particularly their abominable machinations. These gave consistency to the popular belief. This belief extended from the lowest to the highest ranks of society, and put the nation into an indescribable state of excitement. The government, satisfied that the Jesuits were the cause of all these troubles, and with the view of quieting the popular commotions, issued a proclamation, which may have been considered just in those days, but which we, who live in a more tolerant age, must unconditionally condemn. Among its other enactments were the following:—“That whosoever had any children, wards, kinsmen, or other relations in parts beyond the seas, should after ten days give in their names to the ordinary, and within four months call them home again, and when they had returned, should forthwith give notice of the same to the said ordinary. That they should not, directly or indirectly, supply such as refused to return with any money. That no man should entertain in his house or harbour any priests sent forth from the aforesaid seminaries, or Jesuits, or cherish and relieve them. And that whosoever did to the contrary, should be accounted a favourer of rebels and seditious persons, and be proceeded against according to the laws of the land.”[138]

The proclamation was boldly answered by pamphlets from each of the Jesuits. Parson’s was full of virulence towards the Protestants, and Campion’s, although written in a more moderate tone, was no less offensive. This last was entitled Ten Reasons. It was a defence of the Church of Rome and its supremacy, and made no little noise.[139] In both of these writings, it was protested that the Jesuits were in England solely for the purpose of exercising their holy ministry, and not for any political end whatever; that, on the contrary, they had come to modify the Bull of Pius V. Crétineau says, that “Parson and Campion would not leave Rome until they obtained from the Holy See this concession (the modification of the Bull), which would greatly facilitate their apostolic mission; even the Protestants themselves mention this in their annals as a fact.”[140] And in a note he cites “Camden.” We shall quote for him the passage of the English annalist.

“Robert Parson and Edmund Campion were authorised by Gregory XIII. in these words:—An explication of the bull issued by Pius V. against Elizabeth and her adherents is sought for from our supreme lord, since the Catholics desire that it be thus understood, that it should always bind her and the heretics, but by no means the Catholics, as matters now stand, but only when the execution of the same bull be publicly ordered. The supreme Pontiff granted the aforesaid grace to Father Robert Parson and Edmund Campion when about to set out to England, on the 13th April 1580, in the presence of Father Oliver Manara assistant.”[141]

We might perhaps say that this pretended concession is rather an aggravation of the bull than anything else; but we shall be generous, and give it the best interpretation possible. But then, if we prove that all this was a wily cunning contrivance, that the Jesuits might have greater chance of success in their treacherous projects, their crime will be still more execrable. Let us examine. The facts, it is true, are far from us, and the actors have long ago departed to their accounts: True; but then the deductions of logic from well-authenticated facts still remain to us, and are equally convincing. The Jesuits assert that the Pope, out of leniency and benignancy towards England and its queen, had ordered them not to force upon the Roman Catholic believers the clause of his predecessor’s bull which forbade them, under pain of excommunication, to consider Elizabeth as their legitimate sovereign. Well, if the rest of the Pope’s conduct leads us to believe in the sincerity of this mandate, we shall absolve them of every crime, and say that the Jesuits proceeded to England with the best intentions, and were martyrs to their faith. But who was this pacific and tolerant Pope? It was Gregory XIII.; that same Gregory who, at the news of Saint Bartholomew’s infernal feast, went in procession to the French Church in Rome, offered up thanksgivings to the Almighty for the blood of 50,000 of His creatures barbarously butchered, and had medals struck to commemorate this glorious event! It was this same Gregory who had on the previous year supplied the ruffian Stukely with money, arms, and troops for the invasion of England, whilst the Catholics in the interior were ordered to rise in rebellion in his favour.[142] It was this identical Gregory who at the same time sent into Ireland the famous Dr. Sanders, as the Pope’s legate, with a bull declaring the invasion a regular crusade with all its privileges! It was that same Gregory who, says Ranke, “excited and encouraged all those insurrections which Elizabeth had to contend with in Ireland.”[143] All these facts, proving Gregory’s inexorable hatred towards the Protestants, and his determined desire to dethrone Elizabeth, happened shortly before and after the mission of the Jesuits. And yet it is pretended that this same man forbade the Jesuits from mixing in political affairs, and that, on the contrary, he charged them to preach obedience to the queen! We believe that few will give the Jesuits credit on that score, but rather will be satisfied they were sent for the purpose of stirring up a rebellion, if possible to find an assassin, and that the injunction was nothing else than a ruse—an act of duplicity wherewith the better to succeed in their treasonable designs.

The government was, however, highly incensed at their audacity, and attached the utmost importance to their capture. Another proclamation was issued, forbidding any one to harbour, protect, or assist the Jesuits to escape, and that he who did so would be considered guilty of high treason. This produced an effect quite contrary to what was intended. Hundreds of persons who, before the proclamation, shewed no liking for the Jesuits, now risked their fortunes, their lives, to protect them. So interesting does persecution render a man—so generous are the instincts of the people. All the activity, all the vigilance of the most energetic and vigilant of governments was for thirteen months baffled by the dexterity and resources of the Jesuits. The history of their escapes, and the daring methods in which they executed them, is both curious and amusing. Space will not permit us to indulge in the recital of more than one of those marvellous escapes. One evening the house in which Parson had sought a retreat was suddenly surrounded by a band who were in pursuit of him. Resistance or concealment was impossible. Parson at once determined on what he would do. He went to the door, opened it, and calmly asked what they wanted. “The Jesuit,” was the reply. “Walk in,” said he, “and search for him quietly;” and as they entered, he went out, and made his escape.[144] The escapes of Campion were no less wonderful. He himself wrote, “My dresses are most numerous, my fashions are various, and as for names, I have an abundance.”[145] The government, enraged at being so often baffled, had recourse, we are sorry to say, to persecution. Thousands of citizens were thrown into prison for nonconformity, or on mere suspicion. Domiciliary visits frequently disturbed even the inoffensive and peaceful Papists, whilst the Jesuit authors of all these disturbances and miseries laughed at the abortive attempts of their enemies to capture them. At last, in July 1581, Elliot, a Papist, betrayed Campion. He was arrested along with two other priests, in a secret closet in a wall of the castle of Yates. They mounted him on the largest horse that could be got, tied his legs under it, pinioned his hands behind his back, and fixed a placard on his hat with this inscription, in great capitals, “Campion, the seditious Jesuit.” He was brought to London, surrounded by a great multitude, vociferating imprecations and curses upon his head. The shouts of jubilee among the Protestants throughout England were deafening, and many a sincere person rejoiced at it, as if by this capture the kingdom was rescued from imminent danger and certain destruction.

The contradiction which exists between the Protestant and Catholic writers, regarding the treatment, trial, and execution of the Jesuits, renders it almost impossible for us to arrive at the exact truth. The one party calls them innocent martyrs, the other infernal traitors. The one complains that they were most unmercifully treated, the other, that they had too much lenity shewn them. It is, however, an incontestible fact that they were put to the torture, and Crétineau is right when he exclaims against the Protestants, who, while professing to abhor the Papal Inquisition so much, now adopted all its barbarous proceedings. It may be also true, that a jury sitting now at Westminster would not find sufficient material from which to condemn them. But we must remind the Catholics, that to judge of these events with impartiality, we must transport ourselves to those times, when Ireland was in an almost continual state of rebellion; when England was daily menaced with invasion; when the Roman Catholics of all Europe spoke of another Saint Bartholomew; when torrents of imprecations were poured out against Elizabeth, her ministers, and all her Protestant subjects. We must go back to those times when the Jesuits persuaded the Roman Catholics that it was a mortal sin for them to acknowledge Elizabeth’s right to the throne; to those times in which the Jesuitical doctrine, that it was lawful, nay meritorious, to kill an excommunicated king, had already been proclaimed; finally, to those times when the contest had come to this,—“Whether England should be Protestant under the sway of Elizabeth, or Catholic under Mary of Scotland, or Philip of Spain.” That the Jesuits and the Pope caused all this agitation, there can be no doubt whatever. Hume, quoting a passage from Camden, and Walsingham’s letter in Burnet, appears to me to assign the most plausible reason for it in the following words:—“And though the exercise of every religion but the established one was prohibited by the statute, the violation of this law, by saying mass, and receiving the sacrament in private houses, was, in many instances, connived at; while, on the other hand, the Catholics, at the beginning of her reign, shewed little reluctance against going to church, or frequenting the ordinary duties of public worship. The Pope, sensible that this practice would by degrees reconcile all his partisans to the Reformed religion, hastened the publication of the bull, which excommunicated the queen, and freed her subjects from their oath of allegiance; and great pains were taken by the emissaries of Rome to render the breach between the two religions as wide as possible, and to make the frequenting of Protestant churches appear highly criminal in the Catholics. These practices, with the rebellion which ensued, increased the vigilance and severity of the government; but the Romanists, if their condition were compared with that of the nonconformists in other countries, and with their own maxims where they domineered, could not justly complain of violence or persecution.”[146]

The truth of this assertion is rendered still more evident by a petition of the English Catholic priests themselves, addressed to the Pope, in which they say, “That those fathers (the Jesuits) were the sole authors of all the troubles which agitated the English Church; that, previous to the Jesuits’ coming to England, no Catholic had been accused of high treason; that they no sooner made their appearance in Great Britain, than the aspect of things began to undergo a change; that their political ambition was manifest; and that they had set a price on the crown, and put the kingdom to auction.”[147] These were the times and the circumstances in which, on the 20th of November 1581, Campion and fifteen other priests were brought to trial at Westminster. They were all condemned, and three Jesuits, Campion, Sherwin, and Briant, were publicly executed. Crétineau and the other Jesuit historians give them the name of martyrs. Hume, on the contrary, following the historians of the epoch, says, that “Campion was detected in treasonable practices, and being put to the rack, confessed his guilt, and was publicly executed.”[148] It is repeatedly affirmed in the Justitia Britannica, and partly proved, that they were convicted of treason and conspiracy against the life of the queen. One strong proof against Campion, was the production of a letter which he had found means to forward to Father Pond, another Jesuit prisoner in the Tower, and in which he writes:—“I feel in myself courage enough, and I hope I shall have the strength, not to let drop from my mouth one single word which may be prejudicial to the Church of God, no matter what may be the torments.”[149] But we repeat, even though proofs had been deficient for a strictly legal condemnation, there is, nevertheless, a strong moral certitude of their having been conspirators, purposely sent into England to cause a revolt, and, if possible, to procure the assassination of the queen. Thus, whatever may be the objection raised against the legality of the form, no one will deny the substantial justice by which they were punished.