CHAPTER X. The Spanish Armada and the Jesuits.

TO obtain control of England has been the one absorbing idea of the Papal court since the Reformation freed us from its yoke. Indeed, Rome, has always had a quarrel on hand with this country, for history records the determined resistances which the people of England, even when Roman Catholic, made again and again, to the encroachments of Rome, and at a time when Rome held her own all over the Christian world.

There are many reasons why Rome greatly desires to govern us. England has a position unique in the history of nations. France is complimented on occasion as the eldest daughter of the Church, but from time to time the daughter has proved unfilial and refractory and has more than once thrown off the Papal yoke. France cannot be depended upon as an appanage to the Holy See, and the Holy See knows it.

Germany may support Rome politically for a moment, but Germany is not Catholic or likely to become so. Italy has spoken for herself, or rather, has been tried too long by Papal government to submit to it again, unless under military compulsion, which the Pope would use if he could find fitting tools for his purpose. Might not England, if once under the control of Rome, be made to play the part of compulsory dictator? It would be the duty of England, if Catholic. England is rich, she holds under her hand nations and principalities which are mines of wealth, and whole vast populations might be compelled to bend to the Papal power, if once her army was placed at the disposal of Roman cardinals. England has a prestige all her own.

How England is being Romanised.

The people of England are reliable and not given to sudden change, but it may be said that such a change as that which is here suggested would not be possible at the present day. Events move quickly in this 19th century. Already a noble lord openly and without reproach has made statements as to the property of the Church of England which would have cost him his lordly head in Tudor times. He has declared that the property of the Established Church is really the property of the Church of Rome. It matters little whether this statement was made as an unworthy attempt to obtain popularity and continuance in office, through the voters of the persuasion which he seems so anxious to accommodate with the money of the nation, or whether the statement is the result of his own convictions. We are only concerned with the fact that such a statement could be made publicly at the present day. To say the least, it is ominous of coming changes. Canada, through her too complaisant politicians, has already handed over large sums of money to the Jesuits, which they claimed as “restitution of church property,” but this is not all.

Another noble lord has publicly declared in his corporate capacity, and with the express approval of many clergymen of the Church of England that he desires to have England placed once more under the spiritual guidance of the Pope, and it is no secret that all this encouragement has impressed the present head of the Roman Catholic Church, and. has led him to hope that what was not accomplished by violence in the reign of Elizabeth, may be accomplished by diplomacy in the reign of Victoria.

Hence it is of importance that the manner and the methods which have been employed in the past for the subjugation of England to the Papacy should be fully understood, even if the subject was not so intimately connected with the history of the Jesuits.

It may be said that the methods of the times of the Gunpowder Plot and of the Spanish Armada would not be practised now. Roman Catholic authorities do not think so, and they are surely the best authorities as to the plans and belief of their Church. The late Cardinal Manning, who was a Catholic first and an Englishman after, as indeed every good English Catholic is bound to be, has spoken very plainly on this subject. And if in the near future Englishmen find themselves under Papal control or driven to deadly warfare to free themselves from it, they cannot reproach Rome with having deceived them as to her intentions. No words can be plainer than the words which Rome uses at the present day. No authority can be higher than the authority which has made the statements which we quote. There is no uncertainty when Rome declares her opinions officially. The Cardinal has frankly given the special reason why Rome desires to conquer England and subdue it. He says:

“If ever there was a land in which work was to be done, and perhaps much to suffer, it is here (England), were it (heresy) conquered in England, it would be conquered throughout the world. All its lines meet here, and, therefore, in England, the Church of God must be gathered in all its strength.”

Cardinal Manning Commends Rebels.

This is plain language, because it proves how fully Rome realises the importance of converting England to her interests and of placing England once more under Papal rule. Nor can it be said that Rome has hoped without cause. We have but glanced at two sources of encouragement on the part of leading Englishmen, who would appear to emulate their Roman brethren in looking to the advancement of the Church of Rome first, and to the good of their native land a long way after. It is noteworthy also that these men too often agree with Rome in her appreciation of those of her members who suffered for disloyalty to their country but whom Rome would fain reckon as martyrs to her faith.

Cardinal Manning commends the rebellious Becket and the arrogant Anselm as model Englishmen because they were loyal to a foreign power. He commends the men who suffered justly for the Gunpowder Plot as true heroes, and holds them up to the admiration of the rising generation.

It is noteworthy that the service for the commemoration of our deliverance from the same plot has of late years been disused, principally, if not exclusively, through the influence of those who have expressed their preference for Roman customs and Roman doctrines so openly, as to give rise to grave suspicions as to whether they are not themselves not only of the opinion of the lapsed Cardinal, but also secret members of his faith.

It is extremely difficult for an honest Englishman to understand a divided allegiance, and Rome has greatly profited by this difficulty. To an Englishman who fights openly for the cause which he espouses, and always says so, it is almost incomprehensible that others should act differently. But it is all the more desirable that Englishmen should very clearly understand the principles and motives of Roman Catholics. It is no reproach to a Roman Catholic to say that he is true to his own principles, but it is very important that we should very clearly understand what these principles are.

The sooner and the more clearly it is understood that the canon law of the Church of Rome only tolerates civil law when it is practised in complete subjection to canon law, the better for all concerned. This is after all but carrying out the teaching of the Church of Rome to its inevitable and logical end. If Rome’s contention is admitted, that the canon law is God’s law, and exercised by Divine right, it is self-evident that all other law holds its authority by mere delegation.

The Pope claims Temporal Sovereignty.

Hence the claims of the popes, not only in the past, but at the present day, to depose kings, and to permit, and by permitting to encourage, the assassination of rulers who disobey her mandates. Every Roman Catholic subject of the Queen, or of any other power, is first a subject of the Pope. That is to say, if there should be any conflict of obedience between the two powers, obedience to the Pope comes first, and not only does it come first, but such obedience is a solemn religious duty.

The Pope bases his claim to temporal sovereignty on the ground of his spiritual sovereignty. The conclusion, as we have said, is perfectly logical, but what of those who from indifference or prejudice, deny the temporal power, while they admit or encourage Papal claims to spiritual power, though they would scarcely care to submit to the Pope’s temporal Sovereignty. It is true that some English Catholics, as, for example, at the time of the Spanish Armada, may have given their loyalty to, their country first. But no English Catholic dare act in this manner at the present day. Circumstances alter cases. The realisation that the Pope is personally infallible by Divine right, and that this infallibility is an article of faith as much binding on the faithful Catholic as a belief in the existence of God, adds enormously to the importance of Papal pronouncements. Indeed, the Popes personal and political infallibility is taught in Roman Catholic catechisms approved by the Holy See in the United States. Hence, for example, if the United States went to war with England, American Roman Catholics would be obliged to fight on and help whichever side the Pope chose. There is no personal liberty of any kind allowed in the Church of Rome.

The English Roman Catholic who took the side of England against Spain had not the full opportunity of knowing the Papal desires which he would certainly have at the present day. Communication with Rome was slow and difficult, Roman Catholics in England were comparatively isolated. They may have doubted, certainly they took the benefit of whatever doubt there might have been. At the present day such doubt would be impossible. Again, at that time English public opinion was against Rome. Today public opinion is to a large extent greatly impressed by Rome. The pressure of excommunication, which Rome has never been slow to use, either in the past or the present, would soon be brought to bear with terrific force on any English Roman Catholic who took the side of his country, when his country took a side against Rome, or even against what Rome decided.

“It is also difficult for an Englishman to understand that what he calls “toleration,” or considers a favour, where Roman claims are concerned, is not accepted as a favour by that Church and is never accepted as a toleration. Any larger liberty granted to Roman Catholics, whether political or social, is considered by them simply as a right. No thanks are due, and none need be expected, unless, indeed, policy may suggest some appearance of gratitude, which is not and cannot be felt. On the contrary, if all the revenues of the Church of England were handed over today to Roman cardinals, those, sanguine individuals who suggest such a course would find to their surprise that far from receiving thanks, they would be informed that they only deserved punishment for having kept Rome out of her rights so long.

The Popes claim to temporal power being an admitted doctrine of the Roman Catholic Church, Catholics must give their first temporal allegiance to Rome, no matter what may be their nationality. Roma locuta est causa est finita (Rome has spoken, the matter is settled) is an axiom as much a force today as when it was first propounded. But while the Church can always bind in temporals as well as in spirituals, she can never be bound. It is part of the Divine right under which she claims to govern the world that she can be “subject to none” while all must be subject to her. She is also logically the sole arbitrator of the manner in which her rights shall be enforced. Today she may secure what she claims to be her Divine power by fair means, by persuasion or influence. Tomorrow she may put to the sword all who dare to disobey her. And still she is answerable to none. If people but realised to the full the power which Rome claims, and the right she claims as to its exercise, they would be slow indeed before they strengthened her hands, or gave her the power to bind them in fetters from which they may never obtain release.

Importance of State Papers.

We do not enter into the proofs of the statements which are made above, as it will probably be more satisfactory to the reader to place them in the appendix. It will be seen there how abundant and undeniable is the evidence. Also it will be seen that the Jesuits are the special defenders of the Papal claims to personal and universal sovereignty. The Jesuits have writers everywhere to uphold this doctrine, and the Civilta Cattolica is the special and Papal organ for the exponent of Papal claims.

It would be impossible to enter here into the political state of England when the Jesuits planned and carried out the plot for the subjugation of England to the Pope through the hoped for succes” of the Spanish Armada. The discovery of state papers and the perfect freedom granted in England for their publication has enabled the present generation to form opinions from facts. It is a curious and remarkable fact that the Jesuits were not allowed in England during the reign of the Roman Catholic Mary. Cardinal Pole, who knew them well, had a deep distrust of them, and like others of his religion and profession, thought that one cardinal could govern with more advantage to the Church than a dozen Jesuits, who would act as spies on his conduct if they observed their rule faithfully.

Ireland has always been used by the Papal court as a stepping stone to effecting a landing in England, and accordingly in 1550, Davis Wolfe, a Jesuit, was sent to that hapless country. A bishop and two other Jesuits followed three years later. But a far more important step was taken when Father Chinuage was sent to England on the plea that his health required a return to his native air. Who, it was asked, could be so unjust or ungenerous as to refuse a temporary shelter to one who only asked to recruit a shattered constitution. In 1551 a certain Father Sandon was sent to Scotland to encourage Mary Queen of Scots, and to obtain reliable information as to her position and prospects. But the Jesuit father was discovered and obliged to leave the country, not, however, without having seen Mary three times and obtaining all the information for which he had been sent.

Seminary Priests.

But the great danger to England was from the seminary priests who were under the complete control and guidance of the Jesuits. Of these seminary priests, William Allen was the chief. He was an Englishman. A man’s foes are often those of his own household. It is a mistake to suppose that those who differ from us are all actuated either by mercenary or irreligious motives. Religious fanaticism is responsible for the greatest evils which the world has ever seen, and fanatics, with a very few exceptions, are men who believe in their religion, whatever it may be, and will suffer for it to the death. Allen believed in his religion, he believed in the Order to which he had joined himself. The great idea of the Jesuit has always been a universal spiritual monarchy, in which, bien entendu (well understood), the Jesuit should reign supreme. England has always been the place desired for the base of the operations necessary for this end. Hence the blood, the tears shed, and the schemes undertaken in this country by . the Jesuit. He has by no means ended his efforts for the subjugation of the world to Rome through England. On this subject, so important for us, more shall be said later.

In the reign of Elizabeth, the attempt was made through the plots to murder her (of course for the good of the Church), and anything which might help, however remotely, to this end was eagerly availed of. The English Roman Catholics did not like these schemes. The English Catholics did not like the Jesuits. But the Jesuits were a united body, they had the ear of the Pope at Rome. They had power, they had prestige, they were always in evidence, above all they had, and have, enormous wealth at their command. The parish priest was confined to his parish. He could not run over to Rome, of to Douay, or to Paris as he pleased. The other religious orders were located in certain places, and could not leave their monasteries without difficulty or special permission. But it was not so with the Jesuit. He was the freelance of the Church. While it was the business of the parish priest to look after the interests of his particular flock, and of the monk to work in his particular monastery, the Jesuit had the world for his parish and any house where he could obtain an entrance for his monastery.

It is true that he could only move on the chess board of his Society, at the express will of a superior, but it was the express will of his superiors that he should be in the front of every movement which promised to increase the power of the Church and of the Order. He had a large field of labour and he occupied it. When the Jesuit is expelled from one place he is not slow to find another. France may reject him, not without cause, but England opens her arms to him. Catholic Italy may deprive him of the glories of his once famous home in the Gesu, but America opens her doors to him. He is the wandering Jew of the Romish Church, he is followed by the execrations (curses) of those by whom he was once beloved, until they discovered his iniquities.

The Wandering Jew of the Romish Church.

It is an historical fact that Queen Elizabeth was most desirous to exercise the utmost toleration towards her Roman Catholic subjects. It was only when they were required, by their Roman Catholic superiors, to become rebels against her lawful authority, that she exercised her right as a sovereign, to protect her person, her throne, and her subjects from their disloyal plots.

The Jesuits were naturally the great movers in the rebellion against their Queen. Their motive was twofold. Pope Pius V. had excommunicated Queen Elizabeth by a Bull issued on the 5th of February, 1570, and the Jesuits were bound to carry out their vow of obedience to the Pope to the bitter end, and to see that this excommunication bore fruit. It was not possible, as it would have been in earlier times, to bring the excommunicated Queen to the scaffold, but it was possible to attempt to assassinate her privately, and the Jesuits set all their most skilled men to work to accomplish this object.

A great deal has been said, and a great deal has been written on this subject: the facts are hot denied because they are too evident. But on the Catholic side the men who died for their treasonable practices are called martyrs, and applauded to the highest heavens by English Roman Catholics ever at the present day. By honest men they are simply reprobated as traitors, who met the doom which they courted and deserved.

This difference of opinion is worth consideration. History repeats itself. Evidences are not wanting that efforts are being made at the present moment to set aside the Protestant succession to the throne.

It is true that the attempts to announce and honour a new line of kings of England are apparently insignificant in the extreme. But things are not always what they seem, it is significant that such an attempt should be possible. It is significant that such public efforts are being made to overthrow the Established Church at the same time. We point to this simply as a sign of the times, without any reference to the rights or wrongs of these efforts against the Church of England. It may be said that any attempt to change the dynasty of England at the present day is too impossible to be worthy of notice. A straw is insignificant, but it serves on occasion to show which way the wind blows. There are a good many straws blowing about just now if people would only see them. Besides, small beginnings often have great endings. If Rome cannot bend a dynasty to her will, she will leave no means unused to break the dynasty. Elizabeth was cursed by the Pope with all the powers which he possessed to curse. The Jesuit, as the special servant of the Pope, was bound to leave nothing undone to make the curse a success. It was his duty. It would seem that his duty was a pleasure.

Elizabeth Cursed by the Pope.

The Pope could only curse, he could not command the civil power, as he had done in past ages, to execute his vengeance on the object of his displeasure. The Jesuits, his military organisation, undertook that task. If they failed, it was not for want of loyal efforts to succeed.

There were two ways in which the Pope’s curse could be made effective. One way was by the assassination of Elizabeth. The Jesuits, as we shall show later, tried to do this. The other way was by attacking her throne through a foreign foe. The Jesuits tried this also.

It was a dicta of the famous O’Connell that there was no fool so dangerous as a pious fool! We may, perhaps, be allowed to say there is no fanatic so dangerous as a sincere fanatic. Fanatics, with few exceptions, are sincere. And here we find a key which explains Roman Catholic disloyalty. Roman Catholics have maintained that the executions of their co-religionists, which took place in the reign of Queen Elizabeth, were executions for their religion, and reproach Protestants with cruelty and religious persecution. If ever there was a case in which men were executed, and executed justly, for treason against their lawful sovereign and country, the case is that of those Roman Catholics who paid the penalty of their crimes of disloyalty in the reign of Elizabeth. These Jesuits came to England with the deliberate purpose of carrying out the effects of the excommunication which had been pronounced by the Pope

Elizabeth had been cursed by the Pope, and the Jesuits were the chosen instruments of carrying out the effects of this curse. She was no longer a queen, but a woman, whom it was their duty to murder, as soon as she could be murdered.

She was no longer the lawful ruler of the fair realm of England, she was an outcast, against whom every man was bound to raise his hand who believed in the power of the Pope to make or unmake kings at his pleasure. This is a question about which there can be no dispute. It is a question of today, as well, as a question of yesterday. More so. The past is past but the Pope of today claims the same power, the Mannings, and the Howards, and the Arundels, and the Vaughans, are as much bound to do their duty to the Pope first, as were the Jesuits who compassed the destruction of Elizabeth by assassination and by war. They must be loyal to the Pope first, and if loyalty to the Pope conflicts for a moment with loyalty to the queen they have no choice as to which they shall obey.

Queen Elizabeth’s Clemency.

There is ample evidence that Elizabeth gave large and free liberty to Roman Catholics to practise their religion, at least privately, but they wanted liberty to deprive her of her crown, in order to rule England through a Roman Catholic dynasty, whether England desired it or not. Elizabeth punished disloyalty to her throne and punished it justly. If the punishments were barbarous, it can only be said that the age was barbarous and she simply allowed the law to take the usual course. Further, Roman Catholics when in power inflicted even more barbarous punishments on Protestants. But there is evidence that Elizabeth was inclined to the side of mercy, until the discovery of Babington’s plot to murder Elizabeth and place Mary on the throne of England. Tichbourne, one of his accomplices, did not pretend that he was innocent, but said he expected to be forgiven, so notorious was the clemency of the Tudor Queen. In September, 1586, when the plotters were executed, the usual barbarities were carried out to the letter, and the men were cut down alive and disembowelled, but Elizabeth gave orders that the men who were reserved for execution on the following day were to be hung till they were dead. Indeed, Babington actually wrote to Elizabeth the day before his execution imploring her clemency.

But neither executions or intimidations could restrain the impetuous Jesuit. If the plans for the assassination of the excommunicated Elizabeth failed, all the more reason why they should stir up a war in which they were sure that the saints and the Virgin were on their side. They held the strings of three puppets in their skillful hands—Philip of Spain, who was dazzled by the hope of securing the English crown, if not by an alliance with Elizabeth, then by conquest, Pope Sextus V., who was bound at least to appear anxious to secure England for Rome, lastly Mary Queen of Scots, who was beating her somewhat soiled plumage against the bars of her cage. But there were difficulties. Mary was too impetuous and received humiliations from her Jesuit advisers which must have been very galling to her. She was told by Father Martellito, “to take care what she was doing,” she must not offend the Catholic powers. She forgot the risks which others run in serving her, she must beware, or she will ruin herself fatally, she thinks only of her own misfortunes, nay, it is even hinted very broadly that she is not as good a Catholic as she should be, and that there are those who will not be sorry if she gives them an excuse to complain of her. She had not trained her son as she should have done, and he was therefore doubtful and unreliable as a Roman Catholic, and lastly the King of Spain cannot be made a laughing stock by failure, if he sends an imperfectly provided army to England and the enemies of God go to war with him. The view taken by the Jesuit as to the enemies of God is amusing. No doubt he believed, as a good Catholic, and still more as a good Jesuit, that every English man was bound to join the Spanish invasion the moment it appeared on the shores of old England, but did he really suppose that the “enemies of God” would sit down quietly and let any foreigners capture their native land? We shall give at least a considerable part of the Popes Bull of excommunication, which made this Spanish invasion justifiable, and even a duty in the eyes of Romanists. We may add that our authority for the above letter, and the extracts which follow, are the state papers which are given in Froude’s “History of England,” all these he verified personally.

The Shoulder Bone of St. Lawrence.

Philip was not very much inclined to push matters on for the conquest of England. One reason was that he needed money, another reason was that he had just received the present of an old (or shall we say new?) relic which absorbed his thoughts and his devotions. Cardinal de Medici had presented him with a fragment of the broken shoulder bone of St. Lawrence, the corresponding fragment had been long the most precious of the Spanish objects of religious worship. This saint was the particular saint of the king, but it does not seem to have occurred to him that he might have supplied him with the money he so greatly needed for his expedition to crush the English heretics, and compel them to adopt his religious views. The Pope was the great resource relied on by the Jesuits, and they made him do all that a pope could do for the ruin of their native land, for most of these Jesuits were Englishmen. The Pope was quite willing to utter spiritual fulminations, and to place Elizabeth at the mercy of every scoundrel who for any reason, or for none, wished to kill her. But to give money, that was quite another affair. The Jesuits wanted to keep the business quiet, with their usual regard for secrecy, and their usual skill in diplomacy. The blow should be struck, but if they could have concealed the hands which were preparing to strike it, if they could have made the Spanish fleet invisible until it arrived on English shores, they would have been content. The Pope was their great difficulty. They had implored him to be silent. And they had implored him to advance the necessary funds. But the Pope was not to know everything, he was not to know that the Jesuits had arranged to give the crown of England to Philip of Spain. A letter from Allen, the Jesuit, and the promoter of the expedition, to Philip reveals all this.

The Pope must not be told everything.

“We are of opinion,” he writes, “that it will be well to say nothing for the present either to the Pope, or anyone, about your Majesty’s succession. It cannot do good, it may do harm through the sinister interpretations of enemies, and even friends.” Prudent Jesuit! Even at the present day popes prove troublesome to their followers, and the late Cardinal Manning complains that Pius IX., whom he helped to make infallible, “could not be trusted with a secret,” and had become “garrulous” in his old age. France had also her eye on England. France was never, even in later ages, the very ready tool of Rome. France has not greatly affectioned the Jesuits.

France had already put in her word against the Jesuit scheme, and had advised the Pope against it. The Jesuit Morgan had reported to the Queen of Scots, that the French King had been, “at hand with the Pope, to provide that nothing be attempted against England.” *

* State papers quoted by Froude. “History of England,” vol. xii., p. 224.

France was afraid lest England, after all, might be strong enough to defeat the Jesuits, and the Pope, and the King of Spain, that in the rebound the Catholic faith might suffer, and that France might suffer through her Protestant and cruelly persecuted subjects. Further, if the expedition succeeded there would be the danger that Spain, if aroused, by conquest, right annex French provinces.

The Jesuits implored the Pope to be silent, but he would not. He talked to every one of the plot, perhaps from pure love of talking, perhaps to relieve his troubled feelings. The only comfort the Jesuits had was that “he” the Pope, “was such a notorious liar that nobody believed a word he said.” They wrote this to the Spanish King and the original manuscript remains underlined by Philip, in a manner which shows that. he appreciated the communication. There was also another matter about which the Pope was so irritated, that he even became hysterical, “and cursed and swore at his attendants, and flung his dinner plates about.” Altogether the Jesuits had a hard time, Philip, we may presume, consoled himself with his relic of the shoulder bone, and he was never very much in earnest in the scheme. Possibly he understood the English better than either the Pope or his advisers.

In the meantime Allen never lost heart or ceased from pursuit of his object. He had already been made an archbishop, he looked to have a cardinals hat, and obtained it eventually, but the Pope never liked him, though he may have been too much afraid of the all powerful Jesuits to show his dislike openly. All that could be got from the Pope was the promise of 700,000 crowns, but even this moderate sum would not be given until Philip had actually landed in England. The Pope had at least profited by experience in dealing with sovereigns, even of his own faith.

The Jesuits call the Pope a Notorious Liar.

And then came the news of the execution of the hapless Queen of Scots. This scarcely changed matters. Mary was never of much account in Papal plans, as an individual, and we have seen that her piety and devotion to the Church was not quite as much credited in her life time as it has since her death. A pope of the 19th century may canonise her, but the pope of the 16th century was not very anxious to afford her the rites of the Church in Rome after her death. But the Jesuits triumphed, and the Spanish Armada became an accomplished fact, but only to end in a most disastrous failure. Two things, however, are certain. The Spanish Armada was the exclusive work of the Jesuits. Neither the Pope nor the Spanish King would have taken the initiative, if they had not been driven to it by the perseverant efforts of these disloyal Englishmen. English Catholics who suffered death or other penalties, either before or after this event, suffered solely for treason. If Rome today declares they suffered for their religion, she must admit that to commit treason is a religious duty when commanded by the Pope or other ecclesiastical superiors.

Many of these so called martyrs were men who were acting as spies in the pay and interests of a foreign power, and would have been promptly hung or shot if they had carried out similar practices in ordinary warfare. Their actions were none the less treasonable towards their lawful Queen, because they were acts of loyalty to Rome. Their religion taught them treason as a religious duty, and they only seek to throw dust in the eyes of the world when they cover over evil with a pretence of suffering for good. Yet, while Roman Catholics at the present day call loudly for sympathy with their martyrs, they show a very clear discernment of their views as to the fate which should be reserved for those who are what they considered disloyal to their head, and rebel ever so mildly against his authority.

If there was no other evidence of the character of the men who suffered at this time for their attempts against the throne and peace of England, we may find full confirmation in Father Allen’s correspondence with Philip of Spain. As the matter is important, we give a few extracts from his letter here. He writes, “As soon as God shall have given your Majesty victory, you can then allege your descent from the house of Lancaster.”

Philip was ambitious of the English crown, if it could be had without trouble, and this is the bait held up to him by the Jesuits, for, notwithstanding his love of relics, Philip was less zealous to fight for the Church than for his own interests. “The Archbishop of Canterbury (Cardinal Allen was to be appointed to that office by the Pope), who gives his vote first, and whom all the Catholic peers will follow, can easily bring to pass what you desire. The Pope will then acquiesce and all will go as you desire. With the sword of the Lord and of Gideon you will chastise the English heretics.”

How to chastise the English Heretics.

But a public manifesto was necessary also. Allen prepared an important document which cuts the ground from under the feet of these who fancy they can make men of common sense believe the invaders of England did not want to make rebels of English men, or to change the dynasty. This document was printed in Flanders, and was intended to be issued as a pastoral letter to the people of England, by their new and self-appointed spiritual ruler, Cardinal Allen. Copies of this document were smuggled across the channel, and distributed amongst, the Catholic party.

The burden of the whole was the wickedness of Elizabeth. Her father had been excommunicated, she, therefore, for that and a hundred other reasons, had no right to the throne. His Holiness confirms and renews the sentence of his predecessors against Elizabeth. Allen addresses the people of England thus: —“Being of your own flesh and blood, His Holiness has chosen me for his legate, for the restoring of religion and the future ordering of the realm,” a large office for one individual. “He disaharges you of your oath of allegiance, and requires you no longer to acknowledge her as your sovereign.” “ The angel of the Lord,” he declares, will scatter the heretics,” which, as the event proved, was precisely what the angel of the Lord did not do. He assures them that if they will but forsake their Queen, and hand their country over to his control, that their property will be spared. A weighty bribe for those who might have no settled religious convictions, but who might have a very settled desire to keep their possessions. If they took the side of their country and their Queen and died in battle, they would certainly go to hell. Temporal bribes and spiritual punishments were well interspersed in the carefully prepared document. The heretics, he said, were few (surely he knew better), but was not the lie written for good ends? The angel of the Lord will scatter them. This so important and self-confident document is dated, “From my lodging in the Palace of St. Peter at Rome, this 28th of April, 1588. The Cardinal.”

But the Lord fought on the other side, and we do not hear what view the Roman Catholic authorities took of the failure of their promises and prophecies.

We shall show later how much the English Catholics, and the English Catholic priests, dreaded and resented Jesuit plots and interference. The Jesuits had a plan, all their own, for reconciling the conscience of honest Catholics, and there were then, as there are now, many such disloyal devices.

Jesuit Moral Theology.

The Bull, deposing and excommunicating Elizabeth, was the great difficulty, according to the law of the Roman Catholic Church. Then as now, any Roman Catholic who obeyed the Queen, disobeyed the Pope.

To enter fully into the Jesuit system of morals would require a volume. It may be summed up in a sentence. The Jesuits offer the world at large a system of theology by which every law, Divine and human, may be broken with impunity, and by which the very bulls of popes may be defied. It is a ghastly religion, it is a religion to be abhorred of all honest and honourable men.

But it may be said the Jesuits of today do not teach these doctrines, and do not practise this theology. Would to God that this was the case. We have already shown how recently they have brought forward, with full approval, and an earnest recommendation, the plan outlined by the Jesuit Parson for the overthrow of the Protestant succession in England, and for “removing” Protestants from all offices of State, and introducing the Inquisition. This does not look like repentance for past crimes. We have quoted from the works published by the Jesuits at the present day, and the works of the Jesuit authors quoted in this present work are the class books of their schools and colleges. What then can be expected in the near future but civil war, religious anarchy, and the privation of an Englishman’s dearly bought right of liberty of conscience.

Lord Robert Montagu, who left the church of Rome some few years since, has indicated not a few of the preliminary steps which have been taken to further the plans of Rome for the subjugation of England. He says, “By the Ballot Act, the influence of the landlord was destroyed, while the power of the priests which is exercised in the confessional by the threat to refuse absolution was not touched.”

It was far, indeed, from being touched, it was simply secured. English statesmen have signed away their birthright of liberty for a mess of political pottage. A recent Jesuit writer, Father Amherst, has declared that “The admission of Catholics into the Legislature, by the Emancipation Act of 1829, was the first great blow which Protestant ascendency received. England has indeed, been since called an essentially Protestant country, and no doubt there are many who would still so call it. But when Catholics were admitted to an equality in the making of laws, the principle of a purely Protestant State was surrendered.”

We can now only briefly indicate the Jesuit teaching as to our duty to our neighbour, and the duties which we owe to each other. But let it be remembered that what the Jesuits teach the Church teaches and that the class books of moral theology, written by the Jesuits, are also the class books of all Roman Catholic colleges, and that in all schools under Roman Catholic control the same teaching is given.

No crime to remove a Tyrant.

Before blaming the Irish people for crime and discontent, it would be only justice to them to remember that Maynooth has been endowed, and is largely supported by Protestant money, and that the priests who rule Ireland are taught there that it is no crime to “remove” a tyrant, and no sin to refuse the payment of debts which man considers he need not pay.

EQUIVOCATION.

Both Liguori and Gury teach “that it is lawful to use equivocation—that is, language in which words or phrases of a double meaning are employed——for a just cause, and to confirm the equivocation with an oath,” and he defines a just cause to be “anything designed to maintain things good for the spirit or useful for the body.”

“A man may swear that he never did such a thing (though he actually did it), meaning within himself that he did not do so on a certain day, or before he was born, or understanding any other such circumstance, while the words which he employs have no such sense as would discover his meaning. And this is very convenient in many cases, and quite innocent, when necessary or conducive to one’s health, honour, or advantage.”

The same author suggests a surer method of avoiding falsehood, which is, after saying aloud, I swear that I have not done that, to add in a low voice, “today,” or, after saying aloud I swear, to interpose in a whisper, “that I say.”

“ A confessor, if asked by a tyrant whether Titus has confessed a murder, can and ought to reply, I know not, because a confessor knows it not so as to communicate it. Moreover, if the tyrant should persist and say, Is it the case that you know not this by sacramental knowledge? he can still reply, I know not. The reason is, because the tyrant well knows that he has not the right to ask this, neither does the confessor, as a man, know that he knows it, but as the Vicar of God, and with an incommunicable knowledge.”

THEFT.

Thus Gury, in his chapter “On the causes excusing theft,” says—”A man may in extreme necessity use of another man’s goods as much as is sufficient to free himself from such necessity. The reason is that the division of goods, in whatever way it may have been made, cannot derogate from the natural right, which belongs to everyone, of providing for himself when he is labouring under extreme necessity. Whence, in such a case, all things become common, and therefore anyone taking any thing belonging to another, for his own relief, takes a thing truly common, which he makes his own, as happened before the division of goods. Therefore he does not commit robbery.”

A Priest blesses Fraud.

The Rev. Daniel O’Hanlon Walsh is reported in the Wexford People, October 7th, 1885, as saying: — “If you are going to pay the rent, you must first of all consider your liability to pay the honest shop keeper, and make provision for yourself and family. I am not going to tell you that you are bound to pay the surplus. I am merely telling you if you resolve on what to do, but if you think it prudent to put it in your pockets, you will have my blessing and support.”

“A man may steal the property of another, not only in order to relieve his own necessity, but also that of another. The reason of this is that he, as it were, acts for the needy person, and shows that he loves his neighbour as himself.”

Surely this is making the commandments of God of no account.

HOW NUNS SHOULD ACT IN HOSPITALS.

A nun, attached to an hospital in which not only Catholic but also heretic patients are admitted, is requested by a Protestant, grievously ill, to bring to him a minister of his own sect, from whom he may receive the aids of his own religion. But the nun does not know whether she can comply with his request. The question is asked, Can the nun bring in a Protestant minister? Answer, No. The reason is evident, for it would be communication and cooperation, properly so called, with heretics, in a matter pertaining to religion. This also follows from the following reply of the Holy Congregation, 15th March, 1848: —”Most blessed Father! D. N—— lays humbly before your Holiness, that in the city of M—— there is an hospital, of which he is rector and chaplain, and in which nuns nurse the patients. But since, from time to time, the followers of an uncatholic religion are admitted, who continually ask for a heretic minister from whom they may receive religious help and comfort, it is asked whether it is lawful for the aforesaid nuns to call in a minister of a false religion. It is also asked whether the same solution is to be given in the case where a sick heretic is living in the private house of a Catholic whether then a Catholic can lawfully call in a heretic minister.” The reply given to this by the Inquisitors was, “That, according to what is laid before us, it is not lawful,” and they added, “let them remain passive.”

No doubt some isolated case may be found in which nuns will have complied with a request for a Protestant minister, because the Church always considers expediency. But the rule is as given above. The same rule holds good in regard to Protestant children who are sent to Roman Catholic schools.

A Priest Murders his Mistress.

It is the duty of the nuns to teach them as much as possible of the Roman Catholic religion, and this is always done, no matter what promises are made to the parents, unless in cases where the risk of discovery would be too great, and pecuniary (monetary) loss might result to the nuns.

CHASTITY.

We do not propose to enter here into this subject. It is sufficient to say, that the Jesuits condone sins under this head quite as freely as they condone theft and murder. One example must suffice, and it is selected because the whole case was brought before the public tribunals and admits of no dispute.

In 1817, Niembauer, a Bavarian priest, was found guilty of the murder of his mistress.

In his confession of his guilt, he related at length how this woman, whom he had seduced, having threatened to denounce him to his ecclesiastical superiors unless he received her into his lodgings, and provided for his child, he deliberately cut her throat while she was sitting with him in his room, and gave her absolution as she expired. In explanation and justification of his conduct he said, in his confession of his crime:— “My honour, my position, my powers of being useful,—all that I valued in the world was at stake. I often reflected on the principle laid down by my old tutor, Father Saetler, in his ‘Ethica Christiana‘, a principle which he often explained to his young clerical pupils, that it is lawful to deprive another of life if that be the only means of preserving ones own honour and reputation. For honour is more valuable than life. And if it be lawful to protect one’s life by destroying an assailant, it must obviously be lawful to use similar means to protect one’s honour. My case appeared to me to fall precisely within this principle. I thought, if this wicked woman should pursue me to Lauterbach, and do what she threatens, my honour is lost . . . Father Saetler’s principle became, therefore, my dictamen practicum …. Her death has always been a source of grief to me, though the motives which led me to effect it were praiseworthy. These motives, my only motives, were to save the credit of my honourable profession, and to prevent the many evils and crimes which a scandalous exposure must have occasioned …. As these calamities could be prevented only by the getting rid of Anna Eichstadter, I was forced to get rid of her. The end was good—her death was the only means. Therefore I cannot believe that it was a crime.”

The most painful feature in all this Jesuit teaching is the entire absence of any thought of God or of His law. All turns on the opinion of a few men and on their view of good or evil. And this system is being endowed with the wealth of a Protestant, or shall we not rather say, of a Christian nation.

The Flogging Mania.

Surely God will judge the supporters of such infamies, as well as those who perpetrate them.

It might, indeed, be said with perfect truth that if St. Peter had gone to a Jesuit confessor he would have found excuses for his denial of Christ, if not a complete justification, and that even the awful crime of Judas would have become excused if not extenuated.

THE FLOGGING MANIA OF THE MIDDLE AGES.

Religious manias break out from time to time which are sometimes more dangerous in their results than civil war. The dancing mania was one of these scourges which went nigh to over set the mental balance of thousands. The flogging mania was a still more dangerous epidemic, and in this the Jesuits bore a considerable and guilty share. Devotees are always cruel, and Catherine de Medici took up the lash and used it with effect on her hapless maids of honour. It need scarcely be said that she took care that no such suffering should be inflicted on herself.

She indoctrinated her son, Henry III., with this passion also, and induced him to give added prestige to these abominations by assisting at them. Under Henry IV. a more sensible régime was commenced, and all these processions and exhibitions of religious immodesty were strictly forbidden.

A public scandal occurred at the commencement of the 18th century which gave a considerable blow to the Jesuits as a body. That some members of every association may, and do prove unworthy is no argument against the rest, but if the evildoer is supported and his crime extenuated by his brethren, then indeed one must believe that they are partakers of his sin. Such was the case in the famous trial of the Jesuit father, John Baptist Girard, whose illicit amours, under the cloak of religion, with a very beautiful young woman named Catherine Cadiere ended in a public trial and exposure. At first the poor girl came to the father with an earnest desire for spiritual advice, after her fall, probably from a feeling of remorse, which even the priest’s assurances failed to remove. Then she became, as she supposed, possessed by the devil, and no doubt she was the victim of a terrible hysteria. No one could console her but this one particular father, and consequently he passed long hours with her alone, during which he was supposed to be occupied in exorcising the demon.

Though long since forgotten, the scandal rang through the whole of Europe, and the result was a blow to the Jesuits, from which they did not soon recover. At the public trial the unhappy woman was acquitted, for in order to shield her priestly paramour the blame was thrown on her. It is said that great efforts were made to have her punished in some way, but the judges were resolute. They declared that they had acquitted the real culprit, and that they certainly would not pass even the slightest censure on his victim.

The Spanish Discipline.

The extent to which the practice of public scourging was carried during this century under the direction of the Jesuit fathers is a pitiful record of human weakness. The idea that the creatures of a good God could please Him by self-mutilation or torture is sufficiently degrading, but when such humiliations involved acts of the grossest immodesty, the source of the inspiration from which they proceeded is self-evident.

A disguised, but none the less certain, sensuality was concealed under all this mortification. We had almost said that the animal in man predominated, but animals are not guilty of such refinements of evil.

Certainly the administration of the Spanish discipline by the priest to the penitent became at last a source of terrible danger, not only to the Order, but to the Church which permitted it, and in permitting it sanctioned it. We must never forget that what Rome permits she sanctions, because Rome has but to say the word, and at the moment her commands are obeyed.

There were two kinds of discipline, the discipline sursum and the discipline deorsum, or the secundum supra and the secundum sub. The discipline was applied in the one case over or on the shoulders, and in the other case on the lower part of the body. This method of administering flagellation was called the Spanish discipline, because it was introduced by the Spanish Jesuits. It is not to be supposed that the penitents of these fathers submitted all at once to the shameful exposure which was considered necessary, the fathers were indeed far too wise to proceed otherwise than cautiously. The shoulders, but slightly bared, were at first considered sufficient fer the infliction, but as soon as the penitent had become accustomed to this mode of administering penance more was required.

In 1552 a community of women was formed in Louvain, where the Jesuit fathers had considerable influence, as, indeed, where had they not at this time? This community, which was composed of some of the ladies from the first families of Louvain, submitted to the Spanish discipline, and processions were organised and constantly carried out, in which these penitents walked through the streets scarcely clad and flogging themselves or allowing themselves to be flogged until they bled.

The Inquisition forbids Flogging.

The matter was at last taken up by the professors of the university and by some of the secular clergy, and these processions, with the public administration of the discipline, were forbidden by law. At last the scandal became so great, for the use of the Spanish discipline had become a mania, and as infectious as such manias must always be, that the Archbishop of Toledo commanded that the “Book of Spiritual Exercises,” as used by the Jesuits, should be revised. And in 1570 the Inquisition interfered and positively forbad these disgusting exhibitions. The Jesuits, however, were not to be silenced so easily. They at once increased their processions instead of causing them to be discontinued, and they found ready supporters amongst a number of ladies, who walked the streets of Marcia, Toledo, Seville, Saragossa, and other towns, in a state in which it might have been supposed that no self-respecting woman would have allowed herself to be seen. And this was called the religion of Jesus!

But though the Jesuits were obliged eventually to abandon these public processions and flagellations, they were still continued in secret, and with worse consequences.

Download a PDF file of this article.

Please follow and like us: