« הקודםהמשך »
The First Part of “The Jesuits” has already been extensively circulated as a Monthly Volume, by "The Religious Tract Society.” Designed as an historical sketch of their missionary undertakings, it presented a glimpse of their doings in every country into which they had penetrated. After a brief notice of their origin, their efforts were rapidly traced in France, Spain, Portugal, Germany, Poland, Switzerland, Venice, England, Scotland, and Ireland. It also took a birds'-eye view of their foreign Missions. The result was everywhere the same. Amidst every diversity of age and clime, plots, conspiracies, rebellions, domestic miseries and national outbreaks have uniformly tracked their course and marked their career. Such are the characteristics of the Jesuits, as emissaries and missioners of the Church of Rome in her exterior relations.
In the Second Part, we now propose to view them as her masters and directors. Froin their infancy, they aspired to superiority over all other Orders. It arose from their Monarchic constitution-Imperium in imperio. During
three centuries they battled for the mastery. They have now acquired the supremacy of the Popedom. The deathstruggle of Ganganelli was in vain. Jesuitism returned from its exile, like “ a giant refreshed.” Before their expulsionit should not be termed their suppression—they had stamped their features indelibly on their Chureh. The previous struggle had secured the eventual triumph.
It is this progressive advance of Jesuitism in the Church of Rome which we are now to develope. They have effaced the features of ancient, or rather of mediæval Popery. The elder Popery was obstinate, and affected to be immutable.
The younger is yielding, pliable, political, accommodating. • The former took the phasis of Superstition, the latter as
sumes that of Infidelity. Popery is now and henceforth identified with Jesuitism. The Missionaries have become the Masters. The Pretorians are the tyrants of degenerate Rome.
This view of Jesuitism, though somewhat startling, will bear the strictest investigation. It is based, not on ingenious speculations, but on a long series of historical facts. It is substantiated by Official documents, by Parliamentary Edicts, by Episcopal rebukes, by Papal Bulls. For every accusation against the Order, we adduce the positive evidence of members of the Romish Church. It is the witness of that Church, pronounced by her own accredited authorities. It is an accumulation of facts attested by Romanists, from the Council of Trent to the present time.
The utility and importance of this view of Jesuitism can scarcely be questioned. In our controversy with Rome, it is necessary to mark her progressive declensions in doctrine and discipline, to watch her increasing schisms and dissenșions,-above all, to trace her present peculiar aspect, to the predominating influence of the Jesuit faction. Ever since the return of that Order from exile, Rome has been rapidly deteriorating in her Ecclesiastical character, and now that the Jesuits have become her masters, she has lost nearly every vestige of primitive piety. She has sunk into a machine for the repression of Civil and Religious Liberty.
Charmed by the ascetic devotion of her former saints and martyrs, some learned and excellent men have sought to introduce amongst us the mystic piety of Pascal and Fenelon, and recal the departed spirit of Kempis and Bona. But alas ! where shall we now discover in the Church of Rome, any trace of the same spirit ? By the persecution of the Jansenists, Rome had long disclosed her secret attachment to the Jesuits. Still, she held them in nominal subjection. They were employed as subordinate emissaries and agents, in her missions, her plots, her conspiracies, her stratagems. But the fact, that, her menials and minions have become her lords and masters, should admonish all considerate Protestants, how little the Church of Rome is now intitled to reverence and esteem. The Church which has adopted Dens and Liguori, and Perronne, as her teachers, can have small claims to fall back on the memory of Ambrose or Augustin, nay, scarcely on that of Bellarmin or Baronius.
The point at issue is much the same as that which related to Quesnel. It is the Scriptural orthodoxy of the Bull Unigenitus. Of the Hundred and One Propositions condemned by Clement XI. in that Constitution, there is not one, which the most sincere, devoted, and orthodox Christian may not admit. To give only a single specimen. Let us select the thirty-third. "Alas! to what degree must a man have carried self-denial, and the renunciation of