Transcribed from the 1852 Burns and Lambert edition by David Price, email ccx074@pglaf.org
THE JESUITS:
A
CORRESPONDENCE
RELATIVE TO A LECTURE SO ENTITLED,
RECENTLY DELIVERED BEFORE THE
ISLINGTON PROTESTANT INSTITUTE,
BY THE
REV. EDWARD HOARE, M.A.,
Incumbent of Christ Church, Ramsgate.
“Thus men go wrong with an ingenious skill,
Bend the straight rule to their own crooked will,
And with a clear and shining lamp supplied,
First put it out, then take it for their guide.”Cowper’s Progress of Error.
LONDON:
BURNS AND LAMBERT, 17 PORTMAN STREET,
PORTMAN SQUARE.
1852.
W. Davy and Son, Printers, 8, Gilbert-street, Oxford-street.
INTRODUCTION.
In a Lecture on the Jesuits, recently delivered before the Islington Protestant Institute by the Rev. Edward Hoare, M.A., Incumbent of Christ Church, Ramsgate, and since published, there occurs the following passage with the note subjoined:—“It would not be fair to attach to the Order the opinions of the individual, unless these can be proved to be fully borne out and sanctioned by the fixed and authoritative documents of the Society. Nothing, however, can be clearer, than that the sentiments then expressed, [i.e., alleged to have been expressed on an occasion before referred to], were those not of the man, but of the Order; for although there is an exceptive clause inserted in one of the Constitutions, as if for the relief of unseared consciences, so that the Statute runs thus, ‘Conforming their will to what the Superior wills and thinks in all things, where it cannot be defined that any kind of sin interferes;’ [3] yet a little further on there is another section wherein that clause is wholly nullified, and the original principle boldly asserted. ‘Although the Society desires that all its Constitutions, &c., should be undeviatingly observed, according to the Institute, it desires, nevertheless, that all its members should be secured or at least assisted against falling into the snare of any sin which may originate from the force of any such Constitutions or injunctions; therefore, it hath seemed good to us in the Lord, with the express exception of the vow of obedience to the Pope for the time being, and the other three fundamental vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, to declare that no Constitutions, declarations, or rule of life, can lead to an obligation to sin, mortal or venial.’ Thus far all is well; what more can be required? But now mark the next passage. ‘Unless the Superior may command them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, or in virtue of the vow of obedience; and this he may do whenever, and to whomsoever, he may judge it conducive either to individual good or to the universal well-being of the Society. And in the place of the fear of offence, let the love and desire of all perfection succeed; that the greater glory and praise of Christ our Creator and Lord may follow.’ So that the poor Jesuit may be compelled to commit what he knows to be a mortal sin at the bidding of his Superior. He may clearly see it to be utterly opposed to every principle of Scripture; his own conscience may turn from it with horror; his moral sense may utterly condemn it; he may see clearly that he is flying in the face of the most High God; but on he must go, because his Superior bids him; and in order to obtain an object, which the Superior considers conducive to the interests of the Society, he must freely consent to have his deepest convictions wholly disregarded, and his principles of moral rectitude for ever crushed within his soul.” [4]
The present writer is the person alluded to in the note as having complained of this shocking statement, and stated what is the true meaning of the Constitution of which it is such an utter perversion. What he said on the subject forms his portion of the following correspondence. The publication of the entire correspondence that passed on the occasion, will, it is hoped, afford Mr. Hoare’s readers the readiest means of determining for themselves whether the accusation he has brought is sustainable or not.