“any one blush at doing wrong,” or they consider as innocent the most abominable profanation of our holy religion. In both cases, I fear, we must renounce all idea of seeing them change till their impenitent heads be visited by the wrath of God. May their conversion avert it!

Complaints of these scandalous profanations were sent to Rome, even in the lifetime of Nobili. Paul V. delegated the Archbishop of Goa to inquire into the nature of these practices, which the prelate utterly condemned. The Jesuits stirred themselves up in their own defence, and represented to Gregory XIII., Paul’s successor, that those rites were merely civic ceremonies, and not at all religious ones. Gregory, either little scrupulous or persuaded by their misrepresentations, by a brief, dated 1623, approved conditionally of some of those practices, such as absolution, painting with sandal-wood, and some others, which, as we said, were represented by the Jesuits to be merely civic ceremonies. This success confirmed the Jesuits in pursuing the same line of policy; and as they were also at that time at war with other monks to acquire, each for his order, paramount influence over the Indians, they thought that nothing could be more efficient to accomplish their ends than to flatter the prejudices of their neophytes, to be liberal in their concessions, and, in fact, to tolerate almost all the pagan usages. They acted in India, in all respects, as they did in Europe, where, to be the confessors of kings and of the powerful, they invented the doctrines of probableism, of mental reservation, and others of a character as immoral, which we shall examine by and by. For eighty years, therefore, they went from one abomination to another, till the scandal became so great and so universal, that the Roman See was again moved to interfere. Accordingly, Clement XI. delegated Charles Maillard de Tournon, Patriarch of Antioch, with unlimited authority to investigate into and settle the matter. The patriarch is described by Clement XI. as “a man whose well-known integrity, prudence, charity, learning, piety, and zeal for the Catholic religion made him worthy of the highest trust;” and, according to Crétineau, “a man who possessed the highest virtues and best intentions, which, however, should have been directed by a less intemperate zeal.”[103]

He landed at Pondicherry on November 6, 1703, and immediately commenced a thorough and minute investigation of the whole affair. After eight months, he, on June 23, 1704, published the famous decree condemning and prohibiting all these idolatrous practices; although the noble prelate, a good Roman Catholic as he was, is not altogether free from superstition, as may be seen in the decree itself. Here are some extracts from it:—

“Charles Thomas Maillard de Tournon, by the grace of God ... Legate a latere, &c.... having maturely examined all things, ... having heard the above mentioned fathers (the Jesuits), having by public prayers implored divine aid; we, ... in our capacity of Legate a latere, have enacted the present decree:—

“And to begin by the administration of the sacrament. We expressly forbid that, in administering baptism, any of the Christian rites are to be omitted.... We command, moreover, that a name of the Roman martyrology be given to the catechumen, and not an idolatrous one.... We order that no one, under any pretext whatever, shall change the signification of the names of the cross, of the saints, or of any other sacred thing....

“Further, as it is the custom of this country that children, six or seven years old, and sometimes even younger, contract, with the consent of their parents, an indissoluble marriage, by the hanging of the Taly, or golden nuptial emblem, on the neck of the bride, we command the missionaries never to permit such invalid marriages among Christians.

“And since, according to the best informed adherents of that impious superstition, the Taly bears the image, though unshapely, of Pullear, or Pillear, the idol supposed to preside over nuptial ceremonies; and since it is a disgrace for Christian women to wear such an image round their necks, as a mark that they are married, we henceforth strictly prohibit them from daring to have the Taly with this image suspended from their necks. But, lest wives should seem not to be married, they may use another Taly, with the image of the holy cross, or of our Lord Jesus Christ, or of the most blessed Virgin, marked on it!

“The nuptial ceremonies also, according to the custom of the country, are so many, and defiled by so much superstition, that no safer remedy could be devised than to interdict them altogether; for they overflow with the pollutions of heathenism, and it would be extremely difficult to expurge them from that which is superstitious....

“In like manner, we cannot suffer that these offices of charity which Gentile physicians, even of a noble race or caste, do not consider unworthy (for the health of the body) to be given to those poor people, the Pariahs, although in the most abject and lowest condition, be denied, for the sake of souls, by spiritual physicians. Wherefore, we strictly enjoin the missionaries, as far as they can, to see that no opportunity for confession be awanting to any sick Christian, although he be a Pariah, or even of a more despised race, if there were. And lest they should be compelled to consult for their eternal welfare, when the disease is increasing, and their temporal life is in evident danger, we charge the missionaries not to wait till those in this weak condition are brought to church, but, as far as they are able, to seek for them at home, to visit them, and to comfort them with pious discourses and prayers, and with sacramental bread; and, in short, to administer extreme unction to them, if they are about to die, without making any distinction in persons or sexes, expressly condemning every practice contrary to the duty of Christian piety....

“We have learned with the greatest sorrow, also, that Christians who can beat the drum, or play on a flute, or other musical instruments, are invited to perform during the festivals and sacrifices in honour of idols, and sometimes even compelled to attend, on account of some species of obligation supposed to be contracted towards the public by the exercise of such a profession, and that it is by no means easy for the missionaries to turn them from this detestable abuse; wherefore, considering how heavy an account we should have to render to God did we not strive, with all our power, to recall such Christians as these from the honouring and worshipping of devils, we forbid them,” &c.

“The missionaries also shall be held bound, not only to acquaint them with the aforesaid prohibition, but also to insist on its entire execution, and to expel from the Church all who disobey, until they repent from the heart, and by public marks of penitence expiate the scandal they have caused.”

In like manner, the legate expressly prohibits the heathen ablutions and superstitious bathings, at set times, and with certain ceremonies, to all, and more especially to the preachers of the gospel, whatever pretence they allege, were it even to pass themselves off as Saniassi, who were distinguished by their manifold and multiplied washings—‘ut existementur Sanias seu Brachmanes, præ ceteris dediti hujusmodi ablutionibus.’

“We, in like manner, prohibit that the ashes of cow-dung, a false and impious heathen penance instituted by Rudren, should be blessed and applied to the foreheads of those who have received the sacred unction of Chrism; we also proscribe all the signs of a red and white colour, of which the Indians are very superstitious, from being used for painting their face, breast, and other parts of the body. We command that the sacred practice of the Church, and the pious usage of blessing the ashes, and of putting them upon the head of the faithful, with the sign of the cross, in order to recall their own unworthiness, be religiously observed, at the time and after the manner prescribed by the Church, on Ash-Wednesday, and at no other time.

“And, lest from those things which have been expressly prohibited in this decree, any one may infer or believe that we tacitly approve of or permit other usages which were wont to be practised in these missions, we absolutely reject this false interpretation, and we explicitly declare the contrary to be our intention. We will, also, for just causes known to us, that the present decree should have full force, and should be considered as published, after it has been delivered up by our Chancellor to Father Guy Tachard, Vice-provincial of the French Fathers of the Society of Jesus in India; and we command him, by virtue of holy obedience, to transmit four similar copies to the Father-provincial of the province of Malabar, to the Superiors of the Mission at Madura and Mysore, and of the Carnatic, who after two months, and all the other missionaries after three months, from the day in which this decree shall be notified to Father Tachard, shall be bound to consider it as having been made public, and notified to every one.

“Given at Pondicherry, this day, 23d June 1704.”

Nothing can more effectually prove the culpability of the Jesuits, and their sacrilegious crime, in encouraging such abominable idolatry, than this decree, emanating from so high a Roman Catholic authority, and from a man who reproaches himself for being too lenient towards the fathers. This document is a terrible and overwhelming proof against the order’s orthodoxy, and M. Crétineau himself can find no fault with it. His only complaint is, that the different historians who have quoted the prelate’s decree, have omitted to speak of the preamble, in which the patriarch declares that he had been assisted in the investigation by two of the Jesuits, from which fact he (M. Crétineau) seems anxious that we should infer that the Jesuits themselves have condemned these practices. This, besides being contradictory to what M. Crétineau has just said, is by no means true in the sense in which he wishes us to receive it. According to Father Norbert’s version,[104] it seems that the patriarch arrived at the truth of the whole matter by making use of a little Jesuitical cunning. He called two of the fathers to a private conference, received them with great kindness and urbanity, praised their zeal, pitied them in their difficult position, and so overcame them, that they frankly confessed every thing to him. Now, their confession was written down by two secretaries, who were concealed in a closet for the purpose. The superior, to whom the Jesuits related what had taken place, was indignant and alarmed at their wonderful ingenuousness, and sent them back to the prelate to retract what they had said.[105] But it was too late. The legate, to give more weight to the decree, begins somewhat maliciously by saying, that he had been helped in his investigation by Fathers Venant Bouchet and Charles Bartolde, “learned and zealous men, who had resided long in the country, were perfectly acquainted with its manners, language, and religion, and that from their lips he had got a right understanding regarding the real state of matters, which rendered the vine and branches feeble and barren, from adhering, as they did, rather to the vanities of the heathen than to the real vine, Christ Jesus.”

What makes us believe in the veracity of Father Norbert in this case is, that the Jesuits never submitted to the decree, that they still continued to persist in their old practices, and that neither Father Bouchet nor Bartolde was punished or dismissed, one or other of which would most certainly have taken place had they deliberately and openly denounced these diabolical practices. On the contrary, Father Bouchet was one of the two Jesuits who were sent to Rome to get the decree abrogated.

The Jesuits, however, did their utmost to parry the blow. Faithful to an essential rule of Jesuitical cunning, they at first feigned to submit, only entreating the patriarch to suspend for a time the censures attached to the non-execution of the decree, which the good prelate granted for three years, hoping that they would obey, and abolish these abominations gradually. But they were far from intending to do such a thing. On the contrary, they, as we have already said, immediately despatched two Jesuits to Rome, for the purpose of getting the patriarch’s decree abrogated by the Holy See. Father Tachard, the vice-provincial of the India missions, thought that it would perhaps make a great impression in Rome if, to the opinion of the legate De Tournon they could oppose the opinion, not only of all the Jesuits residing in India, but also of the other priests along the Malabar coast. With this end in view, he sent many emissaries round with a sort of circular containing a number of questions, to which he solicited answers, and these, as might be imagined, were all found to be according to his wishes. This strange circular is to be found in the eighth and tenth pages of the third volume of the Mémoires Historiques. Did not subsequent facts and the whole conduct of the Jesuits render it credible, we should have hesitated to insert it as an historical truth, so strange does the document appear to us. Here it is:—

“I. Is the frequent use of ashes (burnt cow’s dung) necessary for the Christians of these missions? They answered in the affirmative.

“II. As the Pariahs are looked upon in a civil light as so despicable that it is almost impossible to describe how far the prejudice is carried against them, ought they to assemble in the same place, or in the same church, with other Christians of a higher caste? They answered in the negative.

“III. Are the missionaries obliged to enter into the houses of the Pariahs to give them spiritual succour, while there are other means of arriving at the same end, as is remarked elsewhere? They answered in the negative.

“IV. Ought we, in the said missions, to employ spittle in conferring the sacrament of baptism? They answered in the negative.

“V. Ought we to forbid the Christians to celebrate those brilliant and joyous fêtes which are given by parents when their young daughters ‘ont pour la première fois la maladie des mois?’ They answered in the negative.

“VI. Ought we to forbid the custom observed at marriages of breaking the cocoa-nut? They answered in the negative.

“VII. Ought the wives of the Christians to be obliged to change their Taly or nuptial cord? They answered in the negative.”

And he, Father Tachard, was not content with the mere signature; he wanted, also, a solemn oath—

“I, John Venant Bouchet, priest of the Society of Jesus, and Superior of the Carnatic Mission, do testify and swear, on my faith as priest, that the observance of the rites, as set forth in the preceding answers, is of the greatest necessity to these missions, as well for their preservation as for the conversion of the heathen. Further, it appears to me, that the introduction of any other usage contrary to these, WOULD BE ATTENDED WITH EVIDENT DANGER TO THE SALVATION OF THE SOULS OF THE NEOPHYTES. Thus I answer the reverend father superior general, who orders me to send him my opinion as to these rites, and to confirm it by an oath, for assurance and faith of which I here sign my name. Signed, Nov. 3, 1704, in the Mission of the Carnatic. Jean Venant Bouchet.”

Fathers Peter Mauduit, Philip de la Fontaine, Peter de la Lane, and Gilbert le Petit took the same oath, and attested it by their signatures, and after like fashion swore all the Portuguese Jesuits in Madura and Mysore.

Whilst two Jesuits were dispatched to Rome with this document, F. Tachard set another battery at work. The Bishops of Goa and of St Thomas were creatures of the Jesuits, and altogether devoted to their interest. At the instigation of the fathers, they, respectively, published an ordinance, by which, on their own authority, they annulled the decree of the legate, under the specious pretext that they were not satisfied that this prelate’s power and authority were sufficient to enact it. The Bishop of Goa, to whom the Pope had sent De Tournon as his representative, to whom he had granted full and unlimited power, went still further, and had the impudence to write to the Pope, telling him that he, the bishop, had annulled the decree of the patriarch, not knowing that he had power to publish it.

The Pope was highly incensed, both against the bishops and Jesuits, and on the 4th January 1707 he fulminated a brief against the bishop’s declaration regarding De Tournon’s decree, giving his full sanction to the legate’s decision in all its parts. At the same time he wrote a terrible letter of admonition to the Bishop of Goa, reproaching him for his impudence, and threatening to depose him.

One would now, perhaps, imagine that the Jesuits are going to acquiesce in these ordinances, which, in fact, are merely directed to abolish Pagan superstition, too abominable even in the eyes of a Popish prelate. Doubtless, these champions of Rome, these devout servants of the Holy See, to which they are bound by a special vow, are going to yield implicit obedience to the supreme head of their Church. Far from it. On the contrary, the Jesuits added perjury to disobedience, and uttered falsehoods so bold and so barefaced, as Jesuits alone are capable of. Fathers Bouchet and Lainez were unsuccessful in their mission to Rome. Before they had even reached the capital, the decree of the legate had been confirmed by a decree from the General Inquisition, dated 6th January 1706. The Pope received them very coldly; and while they were in Rome, he published his brief against the Bishops of Goa and St Thomas, and confirmed the ordinances of the patriarch. Well! can it be believed—would it be credited, that there could be found two men, even among these Jesuits, so lost to all sentiments of probity and honour, as to declare on their return that the Pope had received them with the greatest kindness, and that the decree of the legate De Tournon had been abrogated! Great was the astonishment of the missionaries of the other orders, and of some few Christians who viewed with abhorrence so much idolatry as was introduced into the religion of Christ. But after the first moment of surprise was over, they began to doubt the veracity of the Jesuits’ report, and sent a memorial to Rome to ascertain the whole truth. The Jesuits attempted to intercept this; but the messenger with great difficulty escaped an ambush that had been laid for him near Milan, and at length arrived at Rome. We shall say nothing regarding the indignation of Pope Clement XI. on hearing this. We shall only report part of his brief, which removes all doubt regarding the guilt of the Jesuits:—

Before we proceed further in our narrative, we must go back some few years, and resume the history of the Patriarch de Tournon, who, after having published his decree at Pondicherry, proceeded to China, where he arrived in 1705. The Jesuits were already there. Before attempting to penetrate into this vast empire, they had carefully studied the habits of that (comparatively) scientific and learned people; and, to succeed in their enterprise, they resolved upon flattering the national prejudices, as well as instructing the natives in the sciences and arts. Towards the end of the sixteenth century, Father Ricci made his first entrance into China, and received a very friendly welcome, because he was an able mathematician, and could repeat from memory the most important passages of Confucius. The emperor esteemed him much for a clock which struck the hours, and which had been made purposely for him by the Jesuit; and still more for a map, far superior to anything the Chinese had attempted in that department of knowledge.[107] But from their too great desire to please the Chinese, the Jesuits did here as they had already done in Madura—they allowed the Christian religion to be contaminated with idolatrous practices, and adapted themselves to all the manners of the Chinese. Ranke says that Ricci died in 1610, not by excess of labour merely, but more especially by the many visits, the long fastings, and all the other duties of Chinese society and etiquette.[108]

The first step of the Patriarch de Tournon, on entering the Chinese Empire, was to summon all the missionaries and priests he was able, to Canton, and to declare to them that he was determined to tolerate no idolatrous superstition whatever. In consequence, he commanded them to remove all idolatrous emblems from their churches. The Chinese Jesuits seem to have shewn more of the hypocrite than those of Madura had done. They manifested no opposition whatever to the commands of the patriarch, and obtained for him a very kind reception from the Emperor Thang-hi. But he enjoyed the imperial favour for a very short time indeed. The Jesuits secretly stirred up the emperor against him, by representing to him that the legate despised the Chinese, their sovereign, and their religion, and that he was the instigator and adviser of the Bishop of Conon, who was apostolic-vicar in the province of Foukin, and who had prohibited some of the heathen superstitions, in compliance with the patriarch’s desire. The emperor, indignant at this, by a decree in August 1706, banished the legate from his dominions, and by a subsequent one, the Bishop of Conon.[109] The Jesuits, these diabolical sons of hypocrisy, exulting in their hearts at the defeat of their enemies, had the impudence—we should say, the cruelty—to insult their grief by a letter full of false condolences and tears, which they sent to De Tournon, while still in Nankin. However, it does not seem that the prelate was the dupe of their arts, as may be perceived from the following noble and pathetic answer to the fathers of the Society residing at Pekin:—

But if the prelate was well acquainted with all the Jesuitical cunning, he did not know the extent of their wickedness. Soon after De Tournon had sent this letter, he was arrested by order of the emperor (we may well suppose at whose instigation), sent to Macao, and delivered up to the Portuguese. The Bishop of Macao, who was another creature of the Jesuits, loaded him with chains, and threw him into prison. It is highly instructive to read the bull of excommunication which Pope Clement XI. fulminated against the Bishop of Macao for this deed. He complained that a Papal legate had been arrested, “not by pagans, but by Christian magistrates and officers, who, forgetful of his sacred character, of his dignity, &c., had dared to lay their hands upon him, and to make him endure such indignities and tortures that the heathen themselves were horror-struck—ipsis exhorrescentibus ethnicis.”

In the same bull the Pope lets us know that De Tournon, for certain causes, had been subjected to the ecclesiastical censures of the Church, the College, and Seminary of the Jesuits, which leaves no doubt as to the authors of the capture and ill treatment of the prelate, who was used like the worst of criminals, all to gratify the revenge of the Jesuits. To console De Tournon for all these hardships, Clemens bestowed upon him the cardinal’s hat; but, alas! the prisoner did not rejoice long in this high honour. His life was near a close. The ill treatment, and, as many say, the fastings, which he endured, brought his troubles to an end. He died in 1710, at the age of forty-two. Oh! one is almost tempted to implore the vengeance of God upon such sacrilegious men, who, calling themselves Christians—nay, most perfect Christians—condemned to exquisite tortures, and to a most miserable and protracted death, this noble-hearted man, for attempting to purify the religion of Christ from pagan superstition. So perished De Tournon, a man certainly one of the best prelates of the Romish Church. Clement XI. eulogised him in a public consistory, and, as we have said, excommunicated the Bishop of Macao. We shall not add a word of observation; the facts speak clearly for themselves.

We shall now resume our narrative about the Malabar rites, and endeavour to bring it to a speedy conclusion; the facts which we have already reported being more than sufficient to give a very clear idea of the religious teaching of the Jesuits in India, and of their deportment there. Clement XI., in 1719; Benedict XIII., in 1727; Clement XII., in 1734 and 1739, published briefs upon briefs to oblige the Jesuits to submit to the decree of Cardinal de Tournon, but in vain. The Jesuits either refused or eluded obedience to them. And when Clement XII., in 1739, forced them to take a very stringent oath[110] to obey the decree, every Jesuit took it, but no one observed it; finding a specious excuse for not doing so in that doctrine of theirs, then in full force, which declares that “the man who makes an oath with his mouth, without the consent of his mind, is not obliged to keep the oath, because he had not sworn, but only jested.”

At last Benedict XIV. resolved to put an end to the contest, by publishing, in 1741, a terrible bull, in which he calls the Jesuits disobedient, contumacious, crafty, and reprobate men (inobedientes, contumaces, captiosi, et perditi homines), and in which he made such stringent and undoubted provisions, that it was a difficult matter to evade obeying it; and especially after the Pope, by another brief in the following year, commanded that the brief of 1741 be read every Sabbath-day in all the houses, churches, and colleges of the Society.

The influence of the Jesuits in India now began to decline rapidly. Their Saniassi were discovered to be impostors. The war that began shortly after between France and England caused still greater damage; and when their order was abolished in 1773, the Jesuits had little or no influence in India.—These are the principal features of the missions in India, properly so called. In Japan, that turbulent and warlike country, the Jesuits adopted a different and more appropriate method to acquire influence among the people. Throwing away somewhat of their cunning and pretended sanctity, they espoused the cause of one or other of the various parties who were disputing for power, were cherished, respected, and permitted to preach their religion, if the party they sided with were triumphant; persecuted, exiled, and put to death if it were vanquished. The hundreds of Jesuits who are represented to us as having perished martyrs for their faith were oftener executed as unsuccessful conspirators. The Japanese were not so bigoted a race as the Indians, and the Bonzes, their priests, were not all-powerful like the Brahmins. The persecutions they exercised against their dangerous rivals, the Jesuits, could not be successful but when the people and the sovereign were offended against them, not as missionaries, but as defeated malcontents and conspirators. The Jesuits maintained their ground in Japan with various vicissitudes, till they were suppressed. In China, also, they maintained their ground by the same means which opened it for their reception—they conformed themselves to the manners and customs of the people as far as they could, and it appears that they partly succeeded in conquering some of their national prejudices; they were at least supported by the higher classes, who held them in much esteem for their learning, and so much respected that some were made mandarins; and even when the Christians were persecuted as dangerous conspirators, the Jesuits were left unmolested. However, we possess few documents, excepting those of the Jesuit historians relating their own deeds, whereby to ascertain the real truth regarding their condition in that country.

The Jesuits assure us that millions of idolaters were converted by them in all these countries, but their fabulous narrations are contradicted by facts. For, when a statistical account was made in 1760, of all the Christians residing in India and Japan, the number was found to be less than a half of what Xavier alone is said to have converted, and more than one hundred times less than had been accomplished by the united labours of all the Jesuit missionaries. This reminds us of the computation made by a witty person of all the Arabians killed by the French bulletins from 1831 to 1841, which three or four times outnumbered the whole Arabian population.

In all these countries the Jesuits derived from their converts great contributions; but of their traffic more anon.

We have thus given an outline of these celebrated missions, and we are sorry that we cannot extend the recital of them any further. A characteristic fact ascertained from an accurate study of their missions is, that the Jesuit missionaries, with the view of domineering over these countries, altogether regardless of the interests of the Christian religion, slandered and persecuted all other missionaries, even although they were Roman Catholics. And so they do still.

We must further observe, that the Jesuits, these so-called fervent and unexceptionable Roman Catholics, lived for more than fifty years in open rebellion against the chief of their Church—God on earth—the infallible vicegerent of Christ—and committed during that same period as many sacrileges as were the sacerdotal functions they performed; for, since by the non-observance of the Cardinal de Tournon’s decree, they incurred a suspension a divinis, which means, suspension from the exercise of their ministry—whatever sacerdotal act they performed, they committed a sacrilege.

But methinks I hear some one say, do you believe that the court of Rome persisted in such a contest because she abhorred such idolatrous practices? By no means. The Popes fought for their authority, for the infallibility of their oracles, and not to uphold the purity of the Christian religion. Superstition—idolatry—they like, they encourage, they live by it. Under their eyes such acts of idolatrous abominations are daily committed, that those of India become insignificant when compared with them. I beg permission to relate only one, which, if the fact could not be ascertained by any one every year in many of the Italian towns, I fear would not be credited, so very sacrilegious is it. In the little town of San Lorenzo in Campo,[111] forty miles distant from Ancona, the following procession takes place on the Good Friday of every year. The line of procession extends from the town, through an almost open country, for about a mile and a half, the whole way having been previously prepared for the purpose. On platforms, erected at certain distances, the different stages of our Saviour’s passion are represented. On one of them you see the judgment-seat, and Pilate condemning Christ to death; on another, Christ crowned with thorns; on a third, Christ falling under the load of the cross on his way to Calvary, and so on. Next comes the crucifixion, represented in four different acts. The first exhibits Christ with one of his hands nailed to the cross; the second, with both his hands nailed; the third, with both hands and feet; and in the fourth, our holy Redeemer is exhibited as expiring, and with his breast pierced by a spear. At the foot of the cross may be seen the three Maries. All these personages chosen to represent our Lord’s passion, are picked out from the very dregs of the people, and are paid more or less, according to the uneasiness of the posture which they are made to assume. He who personates our Saviour receives the greatest pay, a crown; while the respective representatives of Pilate and Mary obtain the smallest named, eighteenpence. All these sacrilegious pantomimers are at their post half an hour before the procession begins, and dressed suitably to the character impersonated by each. The miscreant who hangs upon the cross (we shudder to relate such abominations) has only a belt around his middle, the cross being so constructed as to lessen the difficulty of his posture. About an hour and a half after sunset, the priests, in their pontifical robes, issue from the church, accompanied by all the civil authorities, and by a great concourse of citizens dressed in mourning, and carrying lighted torches in their hands. On their way they kneel down before every platform, offer up a prayer, and sing a part of some sacred hymn! This impious ceremony is performed with becoming gravity so soon as the priests and the bulk of the procession draw nigh to the respective platforms; but before their arrival, and after their departure, the scene presents a most revolting and disgusting spectacle. Many of the lazzaroni go round, laughing and shouting, and address those who impersonate our Saviour and the Virgin, in the most insulting and profane language. You may hear many saying, “Ha, ha! thou art here, Theresa! Thou art the Virgin, art thou not? Ah, ah! you”—(modesty forbids us to repeat the remainder of the sentence). “Ah! Frances, thou art the Magdalen! By my troth, it is not long since thou repentedst”—or, “Oh, Paul! Paul! there is some mistake. Thou oughtest to represent the impenitent robber, and not the Christ, thou arrant thief!” But we must draw a veil over the rest of that infernal scene.

So abhorrent is idolatry to the Court of Rome!

CHAPTER VIII.
1556-1581.
THE SECOND, THIRD, AND FOURTH GENERALS OF THE ORDER.

Many were the trials the Jesuits had to encounter after the death of Loyola. The moment he expired, the professed members who were at Rome appointed Lainez Vicar-General, although he was at the time dangerously ill, fixing, at the same time, the month of November for the election of the new General. No objection could be raised against the nomination of Lainez, he being without contradiction the most prominent living member of the Society. The difficulties only began when the Vicar-General adjourned the General Congregation sine die. Lainez was constrained to take this step because Philip II. of Spain had forbidden any of his subjects to leave his dominions, as he was then at war with the Pope.

Since that fatal epoch in which Clement VII., for the benefit of his family (the Medici), had betrayed the glory and destinies of Italy into the hands of the house of Austria, the unfortunate peninsula (if we except Venice) became an imperial fief, and the subsequent popes the Emperor’s chief vassals. Paul IV., although worn out with years, conceived the bold idea of freeing Italy from the Austrian yoke. “He would sit,” says Ranke, quoting Navagero, “for long hours over the black, thick, fiery wine of Naples, his usual drink, and pour forth torrents of stormy eloquence against these schismatics and heretics—accursed of God—that evil generation of Jew and Moor—that scum of the world, and other titles equally complimentary, which he bestowed with unsparing liberality on everything Spanish.”[112] And so intense was his hatred against the house of Austria, that he made a strict alliance with the Protestant leader, Albert of Brandenburg, and formed his regiments almost entirely of Protestants, to fight against a Roman Catholic king. And, as if this were not enough, the Pope, the so-called chief of Christianity, made proposals to Soliman I., the great enemy of the Christian name, to enter into an alliance with him, in order to destroy the ultra-Roman Catholic and bigoted Philip II.

The Spanish Jesuits thus prevented from going to Rome, the General Congregation, as we have said, was postponed. This began the strife. Private ambition broke forth, and threw the community into great confusion. The revolt was headed by the violent Bobadilla. He prevailed upon Rodriguez, Brouet, and two or three others, to join him in reproaching the tyranny and despotism of Lainez. They pretended that he had no right to possess, alone, the supreme authority, which ought to reside in all the surviving founders of the order till a General was elected. Pamphlets were addressed to the Pope, accusing the Vicar-General of entertaining the design to repair to Spain for the purpose of holding the Congregation, and of establishing the seat of the order in that country. The Pope, upon this announcement, became furious; he thundered imprecations against the Society; and when Lainez presented himself to have an audience, he refused to see him, and ordered him to give up, within three days, all the constitutions and ordinances of the Society, with the name of every professed member resident at Rome, and forbade any one of the latter to leave the capital. The storm, it is evident, was gaining strength, but Lainez was an expert and skilful pilot. Inferior to Loyola in natural gifts, in firmness of character, in boldness and energy, he was his superior in cunning, in reflection, in patience. Ignatius, the imperious ex-officer, in the same circumstances, would have scourged Bobadilla, dismissed some rioters from the Society, and obliged the others to fall at his feet and ask forgiveness. The politician Lainez avoided combat in an open field, hoping to gain the battle by stratagem. He quietly and stealthily got possession of all Bobadilla’s writings on the subject,[113] learned from them what were his enemies’ projects, prepared his means of defence accordingly, detached Rodriguez and Brouet from Bobadilla’s interest by caresses and promises, sent the latter to reform a convent of Franciscan friars at Foligno, and condemned Gorgodanuz, the most pertinacious of the rebels, to say one pater noster and one ave Maria! When a cardinal related this fact to the Pope, Paul crossed himself as at something strange and prodigious.[114] Sacchini pretends that the Pope made the sign of the cross, being filled with wonder at the blindness of the rebels; but assuredly Paul was struck at the supremely cunning policy of the Vicar-General.[115]

The revolt was, however, subdued, the Pope appeased, and soon after the war was also brought to an end. The Duke of Alva, that sanguinary and ferocious butcher of the Belgians, conqueror of the Papal troops and of the allied armies, entered vanquished Rome, craved for an audience of the Pontiff, threw himself at his feet, and implored his forgiveness for having dared to fight against him. What a strange piece of contradiction is man!

The peace established between King Philip and the Pope made a free passage between Italy and Spain. The fathers arrived in Rome, and the General Congregation met on the 19th of June 1558.

On the 2d of July, while the fathers were on the point of proceeding to the election of the General, Cardinal Pacheco presented himself to the conclave in the Pope’s name, and after some trifling compliments, said he was ready to act as secretary and teller of the ballot. We cannot imagine the reason Paul had for taking such a precaution, unless he was afraid lest Borgia should be elected General—Borgia, the companion, the friend of Charles V. and of his son. The Cardinal, however, took his place among the fathers, and prepared to act as secretary. The schedules, which had been put into an urn by each elector, having been withdrawn and examined, the Cardinal announced that Lainez was elected by a majority of 13 to 7. He was in consequence proclaimed General, and the Jesuits went in one after another to pay him homage, and to kiss his hands on their bended knees.

The Congregation then proceeded to dispose of other business. There was first of all a discussion as to whether or not the Constitutions should be modified. This was answered in the negative. It must be observed, however, that Lainez, in the margin of the 16th chapter of the fourth part of the Constitutions, where it is prescribed that in the School of Theology the scholastic doctrine of St Thomas shall be explained, had inserted a declaration, “that if any book of theology could be found more adapted to the times, it shall be taught.” An historian very judiciously remarks, that Lainez appears already to have formed the project of establishing a new doctrine, which was propounded by Molina soon after. The original manuscripts, which were written by Ignatius in Spanish, were next confronted with the Latin version by Polancus. The latter was approved of, and ordered to be printed by the press of the Roman College, and this was immediately executed—the first edition of the Constitutions bearing the date of 1558.

But whilst in the middle of their legislative labours, they were startled by the arrival of Cardinal Trani, who announced to them that it was the Pope’s pleasure that they should perform the choral office, like all the other monastic orders, and that the office of General should only last for three years. The Jesuits remonstrated, and spoke of their Constitutions, and of the papal bull that had been issued in their favour. The cardinal answered that the commands of his holiness must be obeyed. The Jesuits got up a memorial, and Lainez and Salmeron went to present it to the Pope. Paul received them freezingly; and at the first observation of Lainez, exclaimed, “You are contumacious persons. In this matter you act like heretics, and I fear lest some sectarian should be seen issuing from your company. But we are firmly resolved to tolerate such disorders no longer.”[116] This was the second time that Lainez had been abruptly and arrogantly apostrophised by Paul. When he visited him after he had been chosen Vicar-General, he received the volleys of insult which the Pope poured upon him with the greatest submission. But it seems that his patience at this time gave way, and he boldly answered, that he had not sought of his own accord to be made General, that he was ready to give up the office at that very moment, but that his holiness knew well that the fathers, in proceeding to the election, had intended to name a General for life, according to the rules of their Constitutions; for the remainder, “we teach,” added he, “we preach against the heretics; on that account they hate us, and call us Papists. Wherefore your holiness ought to give us your protection, and evince toward us the yearnings of a father, rather than find fault with us.”[117] This was the substance of Lainez’s answer, shaped by the Jesuit historians into a more humble and respectful form. But the irascible and obstinate Paul was unmoved by his appeal. He told Lainez that he would not accept of his resignation, that his orders must be executed, and then dismissed him and his brother envoy. Paul was fierce and vindictive, and not to be trifled with. He had accused his own nephews in a full consistory, and banished them and their families from Rome. His greatest desire was to see the Inquisition at work. Ranke says that he seldom interfered in other matters, but was never so much as once absent from presiding every Thursday over the Congregation of the Inquisition. Having such a man to deal with, the Jesuits were forced to submit to perform the choral office, consoling themselves with the hope that the next Pope would be more lenient toward them; nor were they disappointed. Medici, the successor of Paul, who took the name of Pius IV., shewed himself more favourable to the Company of Jesus; not for love of them, but out of hatred to his predecessor, who had been his enemy.[118] Although he was of a mild and cheerful disposition, he made a fearful example of the nephews of the deceased pontiff. Their crimes assuredly deserved punishment; but as it was not in the disposition of Pius to be cruel or revengeful, he was doubtless instigated to act in this case with unwonted rigour. But who his instigators were, or whence he derived the malignant and retributory inspiration on which he acted, it would be difficult to determine. We only know that the Jesuits had been persecuted by the Caraffas from the beginning, and that “Pius IV.,” as Crétineau affirms, “shewed himself from first to last to be more favourable to the Jesuits than even Paul III. had been.”[119] The Jesuits, it is certain, had then great influence at the Court of Rome. Cardinal Caraffa and the Duke of Palliano, nephews to the late Pope, along with two of their relatives, were condemned to death. They were denied their own confessors, and Jesuits were called in as their spiritual comforters. Crétineau says, that the Duke of Palliano asked Lainez to send him a Jesuit confessor, while the detractors of the order think that they intruded themselves, to witness the agony and death of their enemies. We let our readers judge for themselves. The unfortunate culprits were executed during the night of the 6th and 7th August 1561. The cardinal never for a moment suspected that they would execute the sentence upon him. He tried to delay his execution by lingering with his confessor. “Make an end, my lord, we have other business on hand,” exclaimed an officer of police. A few minutes longer, and the cardinal was a corpse.

The Society now seemed upon the whole to be in a prosperous condition, and increased rapidly. Lainez did not exercise his authority with an iron hand, like Loyola, but he had great tact, and knew how to govern a community by cunning policy. Some mishaps, however, befel the Society. In Grenada, a Jesuit confessor refused to give absolution to a woman till she had revealed the name of her accomplice in the sin which she had confessed. This made a great noise. But the Jesuits, supported by the archbishop and the Inquisition, braved the opinion of the public so far, that one of them, John Raminius, declared from the pulpit, as an established doctrine, “that although in general no sin of the most holy confession ought to be revealed, there may, nevertheless, be circumstances in which the confessor may oblige the penitent to discover the accomplice of the sin, or to give up the names of the persons infected with heresy, permitting him (the confessor) to denounce the person or persons to the competent tribunal.”[120]

This of itself shews clearly enough the inviolability of the secret of confession, yet we must say that these gentlemen have made great progress since, for now, without asking the penitent’s permission, they betake themselves at once to the officers of police.[121] However, it is only the sins committed against religion or politics which never fail to be disclosed; the ruffian and assassin need not apprehend that their crimes will be brought to light.

The next disaster the order encountered was the displeasure evinced by Philip II. against Francis Borgia, the ex-Duke of Candia, one of his father’s testamentary executors, and who had a very great influence over the other sons of Charles V.[122] The Inquisition, that faithful satellite of the Spanish crown, to please the king, condemned two ascetic books by that same Borgia, who, a few years afterwards, was numbered among the saints who were worshipped; he himself narrowly escaped being captured as a heretic. Borgia bore all this with true Christian humility, as well as some opposition shewn him by his own subordinates, and was consoled by the Pope, who called him to Rome, and received him with the utmost kindness.

Again, in Montepulciano, a town fifteen miles distant from Sienna, the Jesuits were accused of immorality. One was charged with having pressed a woman to go home with him; another, of having issued from a brothel; a third, of having offered violence to a female; and Father Gombar, the Superior himself, of having illicit intercourse with several ladies, and particularly with one whose love-letters were found in his possession. All these were incontestible facts, proved by sworn witnesses. Now listen to the imperturbable impudence of the historian Sacchini upon this matter. The reason he assigns for all these calumnies is, that “the Jesuits confessed almost all the women in Montepulciano; that they induced many young ladies to consecrate themselves to God in monasteries, and married females to be chaste and faithful wives. Hence arose the grief and fury (dolor et furor) of those whose passions could no longer find aliment. They, therefore, plotted the expulsion of the fathers.” What a set of monsters were these citizens of Montepulciano!

But let us proceed. “The man accused of having solicited a woman to go with him, was a simpleton, who, meeting a female on the road, was asked where he was going, and had the imprudence to answer. It was an enemy of the order, dressed as a Jesuit, who was seen to leave the brothel. Gombar, the Rector, did indeed entertain himself rather long in the confessional, but then he was engaged in spiritual conversation with the ladies. Among other penitents, he had two sisters belonging to a very high family; and the father, not being able to undertake the charge of both, was forced to abandon one of them. The one that was dismissed, out of spite and jealousy, accused the other to her brother, who forbade her to confess any longer to Gombar. The letters were falsified, and every other accusation was mere calumny.”[123] After such justifications as these, few will doubt that the Jesuits were guilty. Gombar, at any rate, frightened by the public rumour, fled, and Lainez dismissed him from the Society, in spite of all his entreaties. The town-council stopped paying the Jesuit teacher the allowed salary. The College was deserted—no alms!—no friends! Poor Jesuits! they were starving. And Lainez, after trying in vain to regain for the College its former good name, by sending thither some of the best and most conspicuous of the Jesuits, suppressed it altogether in 1563. Let them after this proclaim their innocence!

Accusations of a like nature were brought against the Jesuits in Venice, and were corroborated by the Patriarch. Some of the senators proposed to expel the Jesuits from the states of the republic, or to make them submit to the Patriarch’s authority; but the authority and interference of the Pope brought matters again to an accommodation.

Further, all the Jesuits in the College of Milan were accused of unnatural crimes. Here, also, the facts were pretty well established. Crétineau himself is forced to admit the occurrence of individual crimes; but, although a certain bishop brought forth many young men as witnesses against the Jesuits, yet the cardinal, chosen by the Pope to examine into the case, absolved them.

Meanwhile, at the end of three years, Lainez thought it would be politic on his part to appear anxious to resign the office. Having consulted his brethren on the subject, they declared that the office should be perpetual. We shall here give Bobadilla’s answer, on account of its originality. The formerly fierce opponent of Lainez writes to him thus from Ragusa:—“My opinion is that the office of General should be perpetual, according to the letter of our Constitutions. Let, then, your reverence keep a firm hold of it for a hundred years, and if after your death you should return to life, my advice is that the office be again conferred upon you, that you may keep it to the day of judgment. And I beg of you, for the love of Christ, to keep it, and be of good cheer,” &c.

Lainez being now assured of the perpetuity of his office, leaving Salmeron to manage the affairs of Italy, set out for France, in order that he might take part in the famous colloquy or conferences of Poissy, of which more hereafter. From France he passed into Belgium, visited the Rhenish provinces, a part of Germany, and crossed the Tyrol on his way to Trent.

In all these places Lainez made good use of both his name and authority, endeavoured to acquire new protectors for his order, to increase its revenues, to establish new houses, never forgetting, either in his sermons or controversies, to throw out slanders, and vehemently to attack the Protestant cause. He at last arrived in Trent for the re-opening of the Council. This famous assembly, which so solemnly consecrated some of the greatest errors that had ever been given to the world—which interposed an impassable barrier between Christian and Christian, but which, nevertheless, the Court of Rome calls most holy, re-opened on the 18th January 1562. This last Council had been called for by Luther, by the Protestants, and all those princes who were desirous to check the despotism of the Court of Rome, and to give peace to the Church by mutual concessions between the opposing parties. Different successive Popes refused this as long as possible, dreading the total ruin of their authority. Yet this assembly, as Fra Paolo, its historian, judiciously remarks, had a result quite opposite from that which was expected. The Protestants took no part in the Council’s proceedings, the authority of the Popes was further extended and more firmly established than ever, and the hope of healing the schism in the Church was altogether blasted.

The Council commenced its sittings in Trent on the 13th December 1545, was thence transferred to Bologna in March 1547, against the will of the German and Spanish prelates, who continued at Trent, was interrupted on the 2d of June of the same year, re-opened in May 1551, was again suspended in April 1552, re-opened in Trent, as we have said, in January 1562, and finally closed on the 3d of December 1563. The Jesuits boast of having had the greatest share in drawing up the decrees and fixing the dogmas as they now stand. Salmeron, Brouet, and especially Lainez, exercised great influence; and, if there were any glory in upholding erroneous doctrines and the tyrannical authority of the Pope, it most undoubtedly belonged to them, nor are we disposed to envy them the distinction they thus gained.[124]

Lainez left Trent for Rome, and his whole journey through Italy was one continued triumph. But, alas! poor Lainez had not long to taste the sweetness of adulation. His health, which had always been delicate, became worse and worse. He fell seriously ill, lingered in his bed for two or three months, and breathed his last on the 19th of January 1565, at the age of 53.

Lainez was under the middle size, had a fair complexion and cheerful countenance, with large bright eyes, but his appearance was very unprepossessing. He was gifted with a great facility of elocution, and a prodigious memory. He left many manuscripts behind him; some were unfinished, and almost all are unintelligible, as his handwriting was execrable.