M. De Canaze, the French Ambassador at Venice, in stating to Henry IV.

and his ministers the injuries done by the Jesuits to the Republic, confirms the above facts, as stated by the French Historian De Thou. He says that at Padau and Brescia, where they had not time to burn their papers, "Me- moirs were found relating rather to the monarchy of the world than to the Kingdom of Heaven," and concludes thus : — "/ read of no other religious order which has pursued this course : IT is FOR PRINCES AND TRUE PATRIOTS TO OPEN THEIR EYES." — See vol. iii. of Ms Letters and Memoirs.
f The following explains why the Jesuits were expelled from Cbina and India : —
The Secretary to the Congregation de iiropacjanda fide expresses himself thus, in a memorial presented to the congregation, on the 6th December, 1677, respecting the cruel treatment which the Vicars Apostolic had received from the Jesuits :—
" Your Excellencies will have learnt from statements and letters trans- mitted by confidential hands, and from the last accounts on the subject of which you have already received a copy, that the Jesuits' persecutions of the Vicars Apostolic and their Missionaries have always continued from the commencement to this hour ; that the Jesuits have never ceased to thwart
150
From Malta, in . . . 1634
From Russia, in . . . . 1723
From Savoy, in . . . 1729
From Paraguay,* in . . 1733
From Portugal,! in . . . 1759
and obstruct the Mission in the kingdoms of Torquin, Cochin China, Cam- brya, and Syam ; in a word, in every place where these Fathers resided."
The Jesuits have not contented themselves with persecuting the Mission- aries of the Holy See in the East ; they have done the same in Europe, at the Court of France and that of Spain, at the Court of Portugal, in Flanders, and even at Rome, so that this persecution is NOT the work of individuals alone, BUT OF THE WHOLE SOCIETY, AND THERE is LITTLE DOUBT THAT THE GENERAL of the SOCIETY had HIS SHARE IN IT."
See this memorial at the beginning of the 7th vol. of Anecdotes sur les Affaires de la Chine.
* From a statistical table of the Missionary towns of the Jesuits in Para- guay, drawn up at the time of their expulsion in 1733, it appears that the items of their temporalities in man and beast were as follows : —
FAMILIES ••• 21,036
SOULS 88,864
Farm Cattle 724,093
Oxen 46,936
Horses 34_,725
Mares 64,353
Mules 13,905
Asses 7,505
Sheep 230,384
Goats 592
See Robertson's Letters on Paraguay, ii., 50, Appendix.
f Extract from the manifesto of the King of Portugal, addressed to the bishops of his kingdom, in 1759,, page 41 : —
" It cannot be but the licentiousness introduced by the Jesuits, in which the three grand features are, falsehood, murder, and perjury, should not give a new character to the morals of the EXTERNI, as the Jesuits call those who are not of their order, as well as the internal government of the Nostri, or their own body. In fact, since these Religions have introduced into Christian and Civil Society those perverted doctrines which render murder innocent — which sanctify falsehood — authorise perjury — deprive the laws of their power — destroy the submission of subjects — allow individuals the liberty of calum- niating, killing, lying, and forswearing, as their consciences may dictate, which remove the fear of human and divine laws, and permit a man to redress
151
From France again, in .... 1764
From Spain and the Two Sicilies, in . . 1767 From the Duchy of Parma and Malta, in . 1768 From all Christendom by the bull of Clement xiv.,*in 1773
his own grievances without applying to the magistrate, it is easy to see, with- out much penetration, that Christian and Civil Society could not subsist without a miracle. It was to be expected that such pernicious maxims would most effectually dissolve the strongest bonds which could be found for pre- serving the commerce and union of mankind."
1 Extract from the Bull of Suppression of Clement the 14th :— " I have omitted 110 care, no pains, in order to arrive at a thorough know- ledge of the origin, the progress, and the actual state of that regular Order, commonly called the ' Company of Jesus.'
" After so many storms, troubles, and divisions, every good man looked forward with impatience to the happy day which was to restore peace and tranquillity. But under the reign of this same Clement XIII., the times became more difficult and tempestuous. Complaints and quarrels were multiplied on every side. In some places dangerous seditions arose — tumults, discords, dissensions, scandals, which weakening or entirely breaking the bonds of Christian charity, excited the faithful to all the rage of party hatreds and enmities. Desolation and danger grew to such a height, that the very sovereigns whose piety and liberality towards the Company were so well known as to be looked upon as hereditary in their families — we mean our dearly -beloved sons in Christ the kings of France, Spain, Portugal, and Sicily — found themselves under the necessity of EXPELLING AND DRIVING
FROM THEIR STATES, KINGDOMS, AND PROVINCES THOSE VERY COMPANIONS
OF JESUS, persuaded that there remained no other remedy to so great evils and this step was necessary, in order to prevent the Christians from rising one against another, and massacring each other in the very bosom of our common mother the Holy Church."
(Again, he speaks of the following Popes as having censured the order) : —
Urban vii., Clement ix. x. xi. and xii., Alexander vii. and viii., Innocent ix. xii. and xiii, and Benedict xiv.
He also charges the society with " adopting certain idolatrous ceremonies in certain places, in contempt of those justly approved by the Catholic Church."
And he then proceeds : — " After a mature deliberation, we do of our cer- tain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolic power, SUPPRESS AND ABOLISH THE SAID COMPANY. We deprive it of aU activity what- ever—of its houses, schools, colleges, hospitals, lands, and in short of every place whatsoever in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated. We abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath and approved by the Holy Sec or otherwise.
152
During the period of their suppression (from 1773 till 1814) the Jesuits assumed various names and characters — such as "Adorers of Jesus," "Redemptorists," "Brothers of the Christian Doctrine;" " Brothers of the Congregation of the Holy Virgin," " Fathers of Faith," etc. etc.
They were expelled : —
From Russia, in . . . . 1776
From France in . . . . . 1804
From one of the Swiss Cantons (Grisson), about
the year ..... 1804
From Naples in . . . . . . 1810
From France again, in .... 1806
On the 7th of August, 1814, Pius VII. ordered the publicreading of the bull in which he restored the " Order of Jesus." He asserts in it that he restores the order at the warmest request of the whole Catholic world ; while, in truth, France, Germany, and Holland only learnt for the first time, from the Papal bull itself, that they had ever evinced an anxiety for their restoration. It is even a notorious fact that the Emperor Francis I. shewed great reluctance to comply with the Papal bull, and that also the Prince Regent of Portugal and Brazil (afterwards King John VI.) had formally protested (1815) against the restoration of the order, and openly declared that he would never tolerate the Jesuits in his dominions, nor even enter into negotiations with the Holy See on the subject.
It was, in fact, only Spain, Italy, and a few of the cantons of Switzerland that rejoiced at the restoration of the order, and for some years afterwards it was indeed only in these countries legally acknowledged by the State, while in the rest of Europe the govern- ments were extremely slow in complying with the Holy Father's will. For further particulars the reader is referred to Dr. Michelsen's work on " Modern Jesuitism."
We declare all and all kind of authority, the general, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said society, to be for ever annulled and extinguished, of what nature soever the authority may be, as well in tilings spiritual as temporal."
See the entire Bull, translated in the " Advocate' for 1815, vol iii. page 153, &c. &c.
153
The following table shows the countries from which the Jesuits
have been expelled from the time of their restoration in 1814 to the present moment : —
From Moscow, St. Petersburg, and the Canton
of Soleure, in . . . . . 1816
From Belgium, in .... 1818
From Brest by its inhabitants, in October . 1819
From Russia for ever, 20th March* . . 1820
From Spain in 1820
From the Cathedral at Rouen, by the people,
in March 1825
From all the public and private schools in
Belgium, in September .... 1826
From Eight Colleges in France, Ifith Junef . 1828
From Great Britain and Ireland, April 13thJ 1829
From France, ...... 1831
From entering Saxony, by a law passed in
September . . . . . . 1831
From Portugal, 24th of May . . . 1834
From Spain, in July ..... 1835
From Rheims, by its inhabitants, December . 1838
From entering Lucerne .... 1842
* Extract from the celebrated ukase issued by the Emperor Alexander of Russia, dated 13th of March 1820, ordering the banishment of the Jesuits for ever from his dominions : —
" They, the Jesuits, plant a stern intolerance in the minds of their votaries . . . They destroy social happiness by dividing families. Their efforts are directed solely to their own interest and promotion ; and their statutes furnish their consciences with a justification of eveiy refractory and illegal action."
f From eight Colleges — namely, Aix, Billon, Dole, Forcalquier, Montmo- rillon, St. Acheul, and St. Ann. To this decree, for expelling the Jesuits from the above-named Colleges, Pope Leo XII. declares that " he saw in those decrees no violation of the episcopal rights ; and that he did not there- fore think himself justified in forcing upon France ecclesiastical societies which had been expelled by the law of the land."
I Extract from the "Relief Bill" of 1829, 10 Geo. 4, cap. 7-29— "And be it further enacted, that if any JESUIT or member of any such religious order, community, or society as aforesaid, shall, after the commencement of this Act, come into this realm, he shall be deemed and taken to be guilty of
154
From Lucerne for ever, 13th of February 1845
From France again, . . . 1845
From the whole of Switzerland, 6th September 1847 From Bavaria, 17th February From their establishments in Sardinia, 2nd
March ... .
From Naples, llth of March From the Papal States, on the 29th of March From Linz, 10th April .... From Vienna, on the 16th April . . . From Styria and the Arch-Duchy of Austria
May 8th
From the Austrian Empire, 8th May .
From Galicia in the month of July
From Sardinia on the 19th of July, and
From Sicily, on the 21st of July . . . j
From Paraguay, on the 28th of June* . . 1858
From several Italian States .... 1859
And from Sicily, in Junef . . . . 1860
The following important extract is taken from the Quarterly Review, No. 134, p. 586 :-
" No country could ever yet tolerate Jesuits in its bosom without certain destruction. Even Romanism itself, again and again, by the mouth of Romish bishops, and Romish sovereigns, and the
misdemeanour, and being thereof lawfully convicted, SHALL BE SENTENCED
AND ORDERED TO BE BANISHED FROM THE UNITED KINGDOM FOR THE TERM OF HIS NATURAL LIFE."
* The following are the words of the decree for the banishment of the Jesuits from Paraguay, in 1858 :—
"Article 1. The decree of the 28th of June, 1858, is abrogated. 2. The Fathers of the Company of the Jesuits shah1 leave the territory of the Re- public within the shortest space possible, and not retiirn without special permission of the Government."
f The following decree was published at Palermo, in June 1860, for the banishment of the Jesuits from the Island of Sicily : —
"Considering the Jesuits and Leguorians have, during the said period of Bourbon domination, been the most energetic abettors of despotism, in virtue of the powers conferred upon me, it is decreed the corporation of regulars existing in Sicily under the different names of societv and houses of Jesuits
155
wisest and best of Romish philosophers and Romish universities, and Popes themselves, has warned us of the fact."
REMARKS.
The list of expulsions, as here given, was published in some of our metropolitan papers. It is simply a statement of facts which have not, and cannot, be contradicted. One of the first questions which these expulsions would naturally suggest is, Why have the Jesuits been expelled these Roman-Catholic countries ? and why have we not heard of the expulsion or suppression of other orders? The answer to this question is furnished by the extract from Pope Clement's Bull, namely, that Jesuitism is productive of seditions, tumults, discords, dissensions, scandals ,•" that it is calculated to cause Roman Catholics to "massacre each other in the very bosom of their common, mother the Church;" that it introduces idolatrous maxims into the Church. But it may be said — follow the Jesuit in his daily life ; you see a man energetic in preaching the tenets of the Catholic faith, making himself conspicuous only in the chapel, taking no part in social or political life, and, apparently, only living ad major em dci gloriam (to the greater glory of God), and for the good of immortal souls. Now the difficulty connected with this objection is, How can their expulsion from Roman-Catholic coun- tries, the dark and hideous picture drawn by Clement the 14th, twelve other Popes, the King of Portugal, the Universities and Parliaments of Europe, and other distinguished Roman Catholics, be reconciled with the apparent character of the Jesuits ? Shall we say that Clement and the other Popes were odious monsters, deserving eternal execration for fabricating this huge calumny ? that his most Catholic Majesty was most mendacious and vindictive ? Shall we say that other eminent Roman Catholics who are generally considered to have been ornaments of their church, were only engaged in continual warfare with virtue and piety ? aye, that even whole nations rose up against their spiritual guides — against men who willingly gave up every earthly tie, all
and of the Redemption, are dissolved, the individuals composing them are expelled from the Island, and their estates annexed to the dominions of the State."
156
the pleasures and enjoyments of life solely for their benefit, and that merely because the morality of these teachers shone out with superior lustre ? Or shall we say that the Jesuits are the secret and sworn enemies of all law and order ; that in proportion to the magnitude of their designs is the religious hypocrisy with which they deceive their votaries; that they value neither doctrines, persons, nor things, further than these tend to the interest of their order ; and that they set before themselves a design of no less importance than to enslave the soul and body of every human being ? Any person who is even partially acquainted with the real history of the company will not hesitate to adopt the latter view of the question. He will have ample testimony to bear him out from their history in Suuth America, where they endeavoured to establish a government entirely under their own authority, and ranked human beings among their various kinds of property. " In 1848 the Geneose Jesuits declared to government that they were willing to send to the field 700 bayonets at their own cost." In 1832 they raised a force of 100,000 men on the Spanish frontier for the ostensible purpose of protecting the territory from the yellow fever, but in reality to commence operations, on the first opportu- nity, against Spain. The yellow fever pretext was accepted by the Spanish ministers as a sufficient apology (so much for the influence of Jesuitism upon the national mind), but when the time for action arrived, the Jesuits declared their real object, and imme- diately established an absolute monarchy. We are also credibly informed, that some of their first apostles in India professed to le ancient Brahmins.
We have then, from the writings of the Jesuits themselves, ample proof of what Clement 14th, the King of Portugal, and others asserted respecting them. These things being so, it becomes a question of vital importance whether Roman Catholics or Protes- tants should encourage these secret disturbers of the peace and order of society.
A Jesuit mission was, not long since, established in Galway. Doubtless many Roman Catholics who had an opportunity of being acquainted with the history of the order, and who, therefore, with their Protestant brethren, regarded the advent of some of its members with no small share of suspicion, are, from a personal
157
acquaintance with these crafty and insinuating men, beginning to change their opinion, and to look up to them with feelings of admi- ration and reverence. "We entreat such of our Roman-Catholic fellow-countymen as may be disposed to repose unwavering confi- dence in the Jesuits, to suspend their judgment till they shall have obtained a knowledge of the doctrines which these men intend to disseminate in this country. Immediately on the Jesuits having transgressed our national law, which forbids their existence in this country, the peace and harmony which existed among Roman Catholics and Protestants is broken up. Agrarian outrages, elec- tioneering disturbances, a fierce persecution against Protestants, and Phoenix conspiracies are multiplied. They have not ceased to work their secret machinery, till they have outraged not only the feelings of Protestants, by an unheard-of systematic kidnapping which they effect through their misguided and fanatic votaries, but also have endeavoured to wrest from the hands of Roman Catholics parental authority, by prescribing for them a system of secular education, and endeavouring to coerce them to give up that of the National Board and Queen's University, against which there has been, hitherto, no objection ; and all this because Protestants and Roman Catholics study in tbe same halls. Jesuitism is, then, not merely an enemy to Protestants and free institutions, but to every Roman Catholic who dares to think for himself in matters either sacred or secular, and the only restraints that are laid upon them in this country, and which prevent them from running into excesses of temporal and spiritual despotism similar to those in which they indulged in Italy, are those, that are laid on by a constitutional government, which tolerates them when they are expelled Roman Catholic countries — and the freedom, action, and opinion of such distinguished men as the Peters and Barrys, who appreciate too highly the freedom they enjoy as British subjects to bow their neck to the yoke which the Italians lately cast off. ]N"or is this opposition which Jesuitism or Ultramontanic tyranny encounters confined to individuals. We find Roman-Catholic papers — organs of the opinions of, at least, an important and influential section of the Romish Church, boldly and independently opposing this daring aggression upon their liberties. We copy from the Gahcay Vindi- cator of the 9th of May the following very pointed remarks : " We
speak with the most perfect respect for the opinions, and most willingly grant the purity of motives hy which they are actuated ; hut the question of the education of our children, of the collegiate training of our sons and relatives, is one of too much vital impor- tance to all concerned for fathers of families to sacrifice their own notions of right, and of what should constitute intellectual superiority, to t/ti' ri-fisoniitys of other men." In reference to the foreign enlistment now going on in Ireland by the Ultramontane party, in order to compel hy force of arms their co-religionists in Italy to submit to a government which they have found by bitter experience to be utterly intolerable, the Cork Reporter, a Roman-Catholic paper, says :—
' What right, in such circumstances, has any foreigner to join it (the Pope's army), and to assist in imposing on the subjects of the Pope a system of rule to which they object ? If it be alleged that they do not object to it, then surely he can have no difficulty in recuiting his ranks at home. If the government be satisfactory, why do not the Romans fight for it ? If it be unsatisfactory, on what pretence can Irishmen force it on a reluctant people ? "
These are the arguments of Roman Catholics. They are unan- swerable arguments ; arguments of men who will not be swayed or intimidated by the presence of a strong Jesuit faction, or the fulrniuations of an ultramontane press : men who are willing to extend the same rights and privileges to others which they them- selves enjoy : and, surely, to such enlightened individuals, whatever their religious convictions in other matters may be, their Protestant fellow-countrymen can extend the right hand of fellowship, and live with them in social harmony. But we solemnly warn both Roman Catholic and Protestant, if they would not have society disorganised — if they value the first principles of morality, but, above all, if they would be zealous for the glory of God, let them demand the enforcement of that statute, the " Relief Bill," against these men who falsely call themselves the Society of Jesus, but whose mission is to subvert the plainest commands of God's blessed Word, &c.
159
AN ECCLESIASTICAL HISTORY BY JOHN LAWRENCE MOSHEIM, D.D.,
CHANCELLOR OF THE UNIVERSITY OF GOTTIGEN.
Translated by the Rev. ARCHIBALD MACLURE, M.A., Minister of the English Church at the Hague. London: A. Millar, 1765.
Vol. II. p. 94. Their (the Jesuits) whole order is divided into three classes, the first comprehends the professed members, who live in what are called professed houses ; the second contains the scholars, who instruct the youth in the colleges ; and to the third belong the novices, who live in the houses of probation. The professed members besides the three ordinary vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, that are common to all monastic tribes, and obliged to take a fourth, by which they bind themselves to go without deliberation or delay wherever the Pope shall think Jit to send them : they are also a kind of Mendicants, being without any fixed subsistence, and living upon the liberality of pious and well disposed people. The other Jesuits, and more particularly the scholars, are possessed of large revenues, and are obliged, in case of urgent necessity to contribute to the support of the professed members. These latter who are few in number considering the multitudes that belong to the other classes, are, generally speaking, men of prudence and learning, deeply skilled in the affairs of the world, and dexterous in transacting all kinds of business from long experience. In a word, they are the true and perfect Jesuits. The rest have, indeed, the title, but are rather the companions and assistants of the Jesuits than real members of that mysterious Order, and it is only in a very vague and general sense that the denomination of Jesuits can be applied to them. What is still more remarkable, the secrets of the society are not
100
revealed even to all the professed members. It is only a small number of this class, whom old age has enriched with thorough experience, and long trial declared worthy of such an important trust, that are instructed in the mysteries of the Order.*
(Note to Page 96.) " The character and spirit of the Jesuits were admirably described, and their transactions and fate foretold, with a sagacity almost prophetic, so early as the year 1551, in a sermon preached in Christ Church, Dublin, by Doctor George Brown, Bishop of that See, a copy of which was given to Sir James "Ware, and may be found in the Harleian Miscellany, (Vol. V. p. 566.) The remarkable pas- sage that relates to the Jesuits is as follows : " But there are a " new fraternity of late sprung up who call themselves Jesuits, " which will deceive many, who are much after the Scribes "and Pharisees' manner. Amongst the Jews they shall strive "to abolish the truth, and shall come very near to do it. " For these sorts will turn themselves into several forms . " with the Heathen a Heathenist, with the Atheists an Atheist', "with the Jews a Jew, with the Reformers a Refonnade, pur- posely to know your intentions, your minds, your hearts, and "your inclinations, and thereby bring you at last to be like "the fool that 'said in his heart there teas no God' These "shall spread over the whole world, 'shall be admitted into "the councils of princes, and the// never the iciser,' charming "of them; yea, making your princes reveal their hearts, and " the secrets therein, and yet they not perceive it ; which "will happen from falling from the law of God, by neglect " of fulfilling the law of God, and by winking at their sins. "Yet in the end, God, to justify His law, shall suddenly cut " off this Society even by the hands of those, who have most " succoured them, and made them that they shall become " odious to all nations : so that at the end they shall be " worse than Jews, having no resting-place upon earth ;
* Other writers add a 4th class, consisting of the spiritual and temporal coadjutors, who also assist the professed members, and perform the same functions, without being bound by any more than the three simple vows ; though after a long and approved exercise of their employment, the spiritual coadjutors are admitted to the 4th vow, and thus become professed members.
161
"and then shall a Jew have more favour than a Jesuit." This singular passage — I had almost said prediction — seems to he accomplished in part by the present suppression of the Jesuits in France. I write this note in the year 1762 ; and by the universal indignation which the perfidious stratagems, iniqui- tous avarice, and ambitious views of that society have excited among all the orders of the French nations from the throne to the cottage.
WATCH!!!
A I
A TEANSLATION OF THE
LETTER EHOM: THE
TO THE ARCHBISHOP OF PARIS,
Dated Rome, October 26th, 1865,
And published in the Appendix to a Eeport to the Electors of the 3rd Circle of the Seine,
BY EMILE OLLIVIER.
PARIS, 1869— LIBRAIRIE INTERNATIONAL, No. 15, BOULEVARD MONTMARTRE. APPENDIX.
APPENDIX.*
Pope Pius IX. to the Venerable Brother Georges, Archbishop of Parts : — at Paris.
Venerable Brother, Apostolic Blessing and Benediction.
By a letter written with our own hand, addressed to you on the 24th of November last year, you might easily have been convinced of our paternal benevolence towards you. Certainly we entertained the sure hope, that, touched by our heartfelt love for you, you would have heartily responded to our affectionate
* In my first edition I suppressed the letter of the Pope to the Archbishop of Paris, not from any feeling of indecision, but from the fear of committing what might be considered as an indelicacy. I am now better instructed, and know that this document is not a private letter but an official na>, :in act of the Chancery of Rome, and therefore liable and open to discussion. I give the Geneva translation, which I have collated with the Latin text, and find to be perfectly exact. It contains only two or three omissions, which I have supplied; and to show the parts which are mi/ translation, I have had them printed in italics.
M 2
164
feelings, and that you would have willingly fulfilled our wishes, and given manifest proofs of your respect and devotion to our person and to the See of Peter, as is so becoming in a Catholic Prelate. We had hoped this the more, because you had taken care, when you were designated for the Archiepiscopal See of Paris, to address a letter to us, in which you professed the highest attachment to our person and to the Apostolic See, and also the most entire respect for ourselves personally and for the said See. Filled with this hope, we thought fit in a letter, which we wrote to you, and which we now recall to your recollection, not to say one word of the letter which you had your- self addressed to us in the same year in the calends of September, in answer to that of ours of the 26th of the preceding April, upon the subject of some circumstances connected with your diocese. Such a letter written by you has been a subject of no slight astonishment and disappointment to us; for, contrary to our hopes, it has made us understand that you entertain opinions which are entirely opposed to the divine supremacy of the Roman Pontiff over the Universal Church.
You do not hesitate to maintain that the power of the Roman Pontiff over the episcopal dioceses is neither ordinary nor direct. It is your opinion that the Roman Pontiff cannot impose his authority over any diocese, excepting only when that diocese shall be found in such disorder and difficulty, that this intervention becomes the only means for the salvation of souls, and for remedying the negligence of its pastors.
You think that the divine right, in virtue of which the bishop is the sole judge in his own diocese, is completely set aside as soon as the Sovereign Pontiff (except in the case of evident necessity already described) interferes in the affairs of that diocese.
It is your opinion that a canonically constituted diocese, in which the hierarchy is regularly appointed, is converted into a missionary country from the moment that the Roman Pontiff — unless it is in the position already described — exercises his authority over it. Besides, and especially, in your speech in the Senate you attacked, as abuses, appeals to the Apostolic See. You contest the right, which all the faithful enjoy, of appealing to the Roman Pontiff, and you say that tbis right impedes the
165
administration of a diocese and renders it almost impossible. Moreover, while not hesitating to broach such a doctrine, you openly and distinctly declare the means which you intend to employ to maintain it. For you intimate that you are resolved to resist to the utmost of your power, and to take measures to prevent, unless in the case of absolute necessity before stated and often. repeated, the direct intervention of the Sovereign Pontiff from ever taking place. You pretend that the conduct of the Regulars of the Nunciature and of the Roman congregation has had no other intention than to bring the direct intervention of the Sovereign Pontiff into all dioceses ; and you say, moreover, that you will either excite your venerable brethren, the Heads of the priesthood of France, to join in the same opinions ; or else appeal to the public by means of an instruction addressed to them for that purpose.
You have even dared in your speech before the Senate, to propose several measures contrary to the supreme authority of the Sovereign Pontiff and of the Holy See, namely those which consist in withholding the apostolic letters, and submitting them to the approval and consent of the civil authority, and in having recourse to the power of the laity.
In the same speech, which was immediately printed, treating of the organic articles,* you acknowledged the obligation of allowing them some measure of authority and some respect, because they relate to a pre-existent necessity and a grave con- dition of society ! You are not, however, ignorant that the Apostolic See has never failed to protest against these articles published by lay power and contrary to the doctrine of the Church, to its rights, and to its liberties. No, Venerable Brother, we never could have supposed that you would be animated by such opinions, if, to our deep grief, your letter of September, and the speech already mentioned, had not proved it. We cannot but be deeply afflicted and greatly agitated, when we find you so unexpectedly
* The ''organic- articles" here objected to by the Pope are those of the Declaration of the French clergy ; which is in fact their " Bill of Rights, '' and forms an essential part of the Concordat entered into with France by the Roman Pontiff.— TRANSLATOR.
166
favouring the false and erroneous doctrines of Febronius, which, as you well know, have been reprobated and condemned by the Holy See ; and which have been refuted and overthrown by various Catholic writers, in the most learned works. You, Venerable Brother, can easily understand the astonishment with which we were overwhelmed when fully assured that you had enunciated such opinions, so contrary to Roman Catholic doetrine, and which for that cause alone, as a Catholic bishop, you ought to have rejected with horror. Thus, for example, by asserting that the power of the Roman Pontiff over each diocese in par- ticular is not ordi)iar//l)ut extraordinary, you enunciate a proposition entirely contrary to the definition of the 4th Council of Lateran, in which we read these very clear and decisive words : — " The Church of Rome, by the will of God, has over all others the supremacy of ordinary power, and that as the mother and mistress of all the faithful,"* — that is to say, over all who belong to the flock of Christ. You ought, Venerable Brother, to have well known and carefully examined these decisive words pronounced by the Council.
You cannot but know that your proposition above cited is contrary to the common usage of the Catholic Church, to the doctrine received and transmitted from age to age by the Church and all the bishops even until this day, a doctrine which the Church has always held and taught, and which it teaches and holds. She asserts that those inspired words — " Feed my sheep, feed my lambs," were said by our Lord Jesus Christ to the blessed prince of the Apostles in the sense, that by virtue of these words all the faithful, each and every one, remain in immediate subjection to Peter and to his successor as the Supreme Head and Ordinary over the whole Church and over all religion, even as they are all and every one submitted to our Lord Jesus Christ, of whom the Roman Pontiff is the veritable Vicar on earth, the head of the whole Church, father and teacher of all Christians.
We are not less astonished — but perhaps it escaped your observation — that you adopt the opinions of Febronius, in
* St. Thomas, Question 26, Art. 3.
167
maintaining that by the above-mentioned doctrine, the dioceses would find themselves transformed into missionary countries, and their bishops into vicars apostolic. But all know the contrary, and Catholics will rightly answer that this assertion is as false as if you were to affirm that in the civil state ordinary governors of provinces could no longer call themselves ordinary magistrates, because kings and emperors reserve to themselves the plenitude of their power, either immediate or ordinary, over all and each of their subjects ; and it is in fact this very logical comparison which is made use of by the Angelic Doctor, when he says, " The Pope holds the plenitude of Pontifical power as a king in his kingdom. But the bishops, as the judges set over each city, assume a portion of those cares which devolve upon him. ! " *
We are astonished also, Venerable Brother, at your complaints that petitions and appeals should be addressed to the Sovereign Pontiff of Rome, and that he should receive them ; for being a Catholic bishop you ought to know perfectly well that the right of appe'al to the Apostolic throne, as was said by Benedict the 14th, our predecessor of immortal memory, "is so necessarily tied up with the judicial supremacy of the Roman Pontiff over the Universal Church, that it can never be questioned, unless it is pretended to deny absolutely all supremacy, "f The right is so well known by all the faithful, that St. Gelasius, also our predecessor, has written, " There is no Church on earth which does not acknowledge that the See of the blessed Peter has the power to loose that which has been bound by the sentence of any bishop whatsoever, because to it alone belongs the right of judging all the Church, nor is any one permitted to pronounce a judgment against its decision. To that See the Canons have decided that we must appeal from all the countries of the globe, and no one has any right to appeal from its judgment to any other."J
Thus you have thrown us into astonishment when you assert that the custom practised by the Apostolic See, of receiving the
* St. Thomas, Question 26, Art. 3.
f Benedict XIV. Diocesan Synod, Book iv. chap. v. to viii. I Seventh Letter to Bishop Darden.
168
complaints of those who appeal to it from the judgments of bishops, renders the administration of a diocese impossible to you. Such an impossibility no Catholic bishop, either of the present or past time, has ever perceived. If this pretended impossibility could ever have existed, it is the Roman Pontiff who must have felt it ; he, who we may say is oppressed in every sense by the heavy charge of all the Churches, is obliged to receive the petitions from every diocese in the world, to examine them carefully, and decide everything. It could never have been felt by a simple bishop, who was only obliged to answer for the affairs of his own diocese, always a very small portion of the Universal Church. Your complaints against the right of appeal to the Roman Pontiff, and against the ordinary and direct jurisdiction of that same Pontiff over all dioceses, excites our astonishment the more, because every bishop possessing a generous mind draws from that right and jurisdiction, as you yourself can prove, for a great alleviation of his cares, a consola- tion and power before God, before the Church, and' before the enemies of the Church.
Before God :• — because, being relieved in great measure from his responsibility, and of the account which he has to render, illuminated by the blessed light of the Apostolic See, he feels himself day by day better directed to a happier administration of his diocese.
Before the Church : — for by that means he sees it daily fortified and rendered more flourishing, both by increasing union and by increased firmness and unity of government.
Before the enemies of the Church : — because the Bishop becomes more courageous and more constantly opposed to them. It is a matter of experience, and perfectly demonstrated, that the bishop not only loses his power, but becomes the plaything of his adversaries, as soon as he adheres less firmly to the immutable rock on which Christ our Lord has built His Church, and against which the doors of hell shall never prevail.
As to the declaration which you have made of your determina- tion to resist, and to excite other bishops to adopt your quarrel, and to appeal to public opinion, do you not see that by such means, most assuredly seditious, prepared by Febronius against
169
the Apostolic Sec, you deeply offend against the Divine Author of the constitution of his Church, and inflict the greatest injury on your colleagues and on the Catholic people of France ?
Now as to the question of Regulars : — know in the first place that these Regulars have given us no information ; that it is by another source that we have heard of the visit which you made to them. On that subject we amicably warned you in our before-mentioned letter, of the 26th of April, and that warning you are pleased to call a sentence passed without a hearing, and you add that it is contrary to the presumption of right which you think exists in favour of the superior, when there is a controversy between the superior and the inferior, which the Regulars are with respect to you. We can scarcely believe that it was you who spoke thus, Venerable Brother, considering that the Book of Decretals of our predecessors are so well known to you, and consequently you know that from the earliest times it has been the custom of the Roman Pontiffs, on hearing that a bishop had committed an action which had not a perfectly desirable appearance, to write to him fully upon the subject, and explain to him their sorrow on the occurrence. And there are in existence numberless canons which begin in the following terms — "It is related to us," "a complaint has been made to us," "at our audience," "to ourselves," etc., and the bishops have never considered that those letters from the Roman Pontiff were sentences passed without hearing the party implicated. They have never expressed any irritation in consequence, but have always received them in the sense in which they were written, — that is to say, as an invitation to justify their conduct, or to acknowledge themselves in error, or to disavow it entirely. Any other manner of acting would render the government of the Church too difficult for the vicar of Christ on earth, and would not be sufficiently conformable to episcopal gentleness.
We are afflicted, Venerable Brother, that you should have fallen into any ambiguities concerning the affairs of the Regulars. But in the first place we would wish you to consider, with your usual sagacity, that we are now treating of the episcopal visit, made whether to the Society of Jesus, or to the Franciscans of the Order of Capuchins, who have resided in the city of Paris
170
under several bishops, your predecessors, enjoying the peaceable possession of their exemption ; and, in consequence, the Holy Apostolic See itself was in the enjoyment of its peculiar and separate right of jurisdiction over these same Regulars. Thus it becomes a • question of spoliation, accomplished by an act destructive of the privileges of the Holy See and the Regulars. Such is the real state of the question : whence you will easily perceive that the Apostolic See would act with justice, even if it was pleased to convert into a judgment or a sentence, the terms in which we have thought proper to make it known to you. In truth, Venerable Brother, even if you were perfectly right as to the facts, you are nevertheless not ignorant, that according to the rules of either of these kinds of rights, no one can be violently deprived of a right of which he is in possession. For which reason, before proceeding to deprive either the Regulars or the Holy See of their status and of their rights, propriety as well as justice. requires that you should have informed the Holy See of the reasons, and you should have awaited its answer. You know very well the difference which exists between a judgment demanded, and a judgment obtained, and what either right enjoins, particularly in all that concerns judgments of either class. We earnestly desire, Yenerable Brother, you would in your great prudence examine these points with care, and weigh them in your mind.
You believe, moreover, that presumption ought always to exist in favour of the superior when it relates to a debate between persons of different stations ; and you therefore propose a rule very different to that proposed by St. Bernard in the following terms to our predecessor Innocent II. : — " In all that dis- tinguishes your sole supremacy, that which ennobles it most especially, and that which renders your apostolate most peculiarly illustrious, is that you can rescue the poor from out of the hands of those more powerful than themselves."*
But you say the religious communities who live at Paris cannot enjoy this exemption because, as it appears to you, they have not been canonically established, and that for three reasons — Firstly, because the law of the State allows the Regulars no legal
* St. Bernard, 198.
171
existence ; secondly, because the same law does not permit religious houses to hold property or possessions of any kind ; from which it follows that it is impossible to fulfil the orders of the Apostolic constitutions, — that is to say, that before the foun- dation of a religious house it must be proved that "they are in possession of a revenue sufficient for their decent support ; and lastly, because the Council of Trent and the constitutions of the Roman Pontiffs require, for the canonical existence of Regulars in any diocese, the consent of the bishop, which you affirm has never been given to the persons in question. You also affirm, that the fact of their previous existence cannot in any way render their position canonical under the pretext of implied approbation ; for, according to your opinion, the constitutions of the Pontifical See and the Council of Trent demand that the consent and authorisation should be formally expressed by a written license made before the establishment of the Regulars. Thus, according to you, the consent cannot be supposed to be given under the title of prescription, because this is a question of the laws of public order, which do not admit of prescription.
We have no doubt, Venerable Brother, that you will succeed in convincing yourself that these arguments are powerless and have no weight. In order to that, you have only to weigh seriously, and with your great intelligence, what we are about to say, which we wish you to consider carefully.
In all that relates to the laws of the State which refuse a legal or civil existence to the Regular Orders, which interdict their houses from possessing the full and complete enjoyment of any property, and which thus prevent them from fulfilling the conditions imposed by canonical rule on their foundation, that is, that they shall make known what revenues they possess to provide decently for themselves : what can be the value of civil laws as against ecclesiastical rights and government ? It cannot escape your notice that the civil laws, the laws of the State above all, in these troubled and unhappy times of frightful and per- nicious rebellion, may any day deny even to the bishops, and every other constituted power of the Church, a legal or civil existence, even unjustly denying them the possession and full proprietorship of any species of property. Is it possible that such
172
laws should be a sufficient reason to deny bishops and every constituted power of the Church a canonical existence and their ecclesiastical rights? You well know that it is in religious communities that it is most easy to observe and practise the exercises declared to be necessary by the Holy Councils to attain to Christian perfection. What then ? May civil laws interdict in any state the practice of Christian perfection, and can bishops attribute any canonical value to such laws ? All the world, and more especially the bishops, know what has always been the conduct of the Church, and more especially of the Apostolic See, in regard to those laws which are hostile to the religious orders. Is it possible that a bishop should separate himself on such a point from the tradition of the Church ; and by deserting the position which he holds in the Church, sanction such laws in the face of the whole Church, by attributing to them any power?
These considerations must shew you clearly how vain and useless any scheme of opposition, drawn from such a species of civil law, must ever be. As to what the laws prescribe, — that religious houses can possess nothing, as full and absolute owners ; and as to the conclusion at which you have arrived from this state of affairs, viz., that the condition of certain posses- sions, necessary for the decent maintenance of the members, imposed by the sacred canons on the foundation of houses of Regulars, can never be fulfilled, you have only, Venerable Brother, to study profoundly the letter and spirit of the canons cited by yourself, to prove that you are in error and deceive yourself. In fact, what is the aim of these canons when they prescribe a condition of that kind ? They seek for nothing, except the welfare of the members, taking into consideration the interest of each individual ; and, also, the good government and administration of the community.
Therefore, when it is quite impossible for them to fulfil that condition, would it be just to turn to their detriment that which had only been prescribed for their advantage ? On that subject you are perfectly well acquainted with the regulations, not only of the canons,* but also of the civil law.f It is an
* Cap. quod ob gratiam de regulis juris, t Legge nulla 25ff, de legit.
173
acknowledged maxim that, neither in law nor in equity, is it admissible that we should turn to the disadvantage of individuals, by either too strict or too hard an interpretation, any prescriptions which have only been introduced into the law with a view to their advantage. Now, if you examine the letter of the canons, do you find that only by an accident they prescribe, that the members, according to your view of the case, should feed themselves, and maintain themselves solely on the produce of properties belonging to themselves ? Certainly not. The canons relating to that are the constitution Cum Alias of our predecessor Gregory XV., published on the 25th of August, 1622 ; * that of Urban the VIII., also our predecessor, issued on the 21st of June, 1625 ; lastly, the constitution Nuper of Innocent the XII., dated the 23rd of December, 1697. We might have satisfied ourselves by alleging only the last, which is the most recent, and which contains both the others. This constitution expresses itself thus : " Tbat no monastery, convent, or house of Regulars, shall anywhere be received, unless there are in the establishment at least twelve members who can subsist and maintain themselves on the revenues of all kinds and the accustomed alms, making all necessary deductions." Thus the canons do not speak at all of the produce of property in possession. They merely mention " the revenues in general, and alms."
"We must now speak of another condition, that is to say, of the Licence, and the Episcopal consent which the Council of Trent and the constitutions require to constitute the canonical existence of houses of Regulars. No one certainly, Venerable Brother, can doubt about the necessity of the Episcopal consent ; but in this case we must see if the consent has not existed in a manner sufficiently satisfactory. Now, having carefully weighed all the circumstances, how can anyone ever deny that the Episcopal consent has really existed in this case ? Without citing other facts, all the world knows, Venerable Brother, that the "religious" in question, of the Order of St. Francis, and of the Society of Jesus, have really existed in Paris under several bishops, your pre- decessors, who very willingly accepted their assistance in providing for the salvation of souls, and in executing all the various offices
* 15th August, 1622.
174
of the holy ministry, and overwhelmed them with every possible mark of their goodwill and esteem. This conduct on the part of your predecessors towards the Regulars in question shows that Episcopal consent had been sufficiently expressed ; and that it is impossible to deny the fact without imputing grave blame to your predecessors. And this is a convenient opportunity of placing before you the words written by, Fagnan,* an author contem- porary with Urban the VIII., and other Roman Pontiffs, our predecessors, invoked by you, who possessed a fundamental knowledge of the canonical constitutions which you invoke. Fagnan remarks — and neither before nor since has any one con- tradicted the opinion — that in all that concerns the establishment of Regulars in a diocese : " It is sufficient that the consent of the bishop should be given after the election ; and that to con- firm it, ratification is sufficient," in which opinion, the Arch- deacon Hugo and others agree. f And, in truth, it could not be otherwise. Justice demands it, and the lawyers have agreed that facts and acts are more powerful than words. Thus in your wisdom you will understand, that your opinion, drawn from the Constitution of Urban VIII., namely, that the license of the Ordinary ought to be formally expressed in writing, and cannot be either implied or presumed, has no weight. Firstly, because that which is proved by facts, certain, evident, and continued during a long series of years, is not less formally expressed, than that which is made known by words or writings. But, also, because no canonical constitution imposes the condition of a written consent. You cannot allege here the argument drawn from the Council of Trent, that the consent of the Ordinary must precede the foundation ; in fact, it cannot escape you that it is the natural and judicial virtue of every ratification of later acts to excuse the absence of the consent, which, according to legal form, ought to have preceded them. As to what you say about pre- scription, that has nothing to do with the present question. No one pretends that a prescription can be taken instead of episcopal consent, and render it unnecessary. We say simply in this case, that the episcopal consent exists, without doubt, in a manner
* De Institutionibus, cap. Non amplius. t Fagnanus, glossa ultima in cap. cle Monachis quest. 2.
175
sufficiently satisfactory ; which is clearly and amply proved by a great number of facts, and during a very long series of years, so that, not only is it impossible to deny its existence, but we ought to consider it certain that it has been given in the best form.
This is what we consider necessary to answer to your letters, especially those of the calends of September ; and to this we think it necessary to draw your attention. But, besides, we cannot avoid making other observations which are also of great importance.
In fact, we cannot conceal from you, Venerable Brother, that our grief and astonishment were very great, when we heard that you had presided at the Obsequies of Marshal Magnau, Grand Master of the Order of Freemasons, and given the solemn absolution when the Masonic Insignia were placed on the. funeral canopy, and the members of that con- demned sect, decorated with the same insignia, were ranged around it.
In the letter which you addressed to us on the 1st of last August, you assure us that these insignia had not been seen by you, nor by your clergy ; that, in one word, they were unknown to you in any manner ; but you knew very well, Venerable Brother, that the dead man had during life had the misfortune to be at the head of that proscribed sect, vulgarly called by the name of the " Grand Orient," and consequently you might have easily foreseen that the members of that sect would assist at his funeral ; and that they would take care to make a parade of their insignia. You ought therefore in your religious position to have maturely weighed these considerations, and to have been on your guard on the occasion of this Funeral, in order not to have caused by your presence and co-operation the astonishment and profound grief which all true Catholics have felt on this occasion. You cannot be ignorant that Masonic societies, and all other associations of the same iniquitous character, have been condemned by the Roman Pontiffs,* our
* Clement XII., Constitution Imminenti. Benedict XIV., Constitution Providos- Pius VII., Constitution Ecclesiam. Leo XII., Constitution Duo t/n/viora, our Encyclical of the 9th of November, 1840. Et alibi.
176
predecessors, and by oursclf; that even severe penalties have been enacted against them. These impious sects, having different denominations, are, in fact, all linked together by their mutual complicity in the most criminal designs, all being inflamed with the most intense hatred of our holy religion and the Apostolic See, and are endeavouring by the dissemination of pestilential books, and in many other ways, by perverse manoeuvres and by every kind of devilish artifice, to corrupt all over the world both morality and belief, and to destroy all honest, true, and just opinion ; to spread throughout the universe these monstrous opinions ; to conceal and propagate the most detestable vices, and every conceivable rascality ; to shake the power of all legitimate authority, and to compass the overthrow, if it were possible, of the Catholic Church, and of civil society, and to drive God Himself out of heaven.
We cannot pass over in silence the accounts thajt have reached us, that an erroneous and pernicious opinion has been embraced, namely, that the acts of the Apostolic See do not beget any obligations, at least, not until they have been clothed by a warrant for their execution from the civil power.
Now all must see how injurious such an erroneous opinion must be to the authority of the Church and the Apostolic See, and how completely it is opposed to the spiritual welfare of all the faithful ; for the supreme authority of the Church and of the Apostolic See can never, in any way, be submitted to the power and the will of any civil power, in anything that is connected in any manner whatsoever with ecclesiastical affairs and the spiritual government of souls ; and all those persons who dignify themselves by the name of Catholic, are completely under obedience to that said Church, as well as to the Apostolic See, and are bound to testify the respect and devotion towards them which are their due.
And here again we wish that you should observe that in the above-mentioned speech in the senate, you bring forward a fact, which is entirely inexact, that Benedict XIV.,* of blessed memory, our predecessor, in a Concordat with the king of Sardinia, had conceded to that monarch the right of royal execution in relation to pontifical acts. And you assert that the Instruction
* Benedict XIII.
177
annexed to this convention, declares, " That the Papal constitutions relative to discipline, ought to be submitted to the cognisance of Parliament, and that they require the royal exequatur to have the force and obligation of law, with the exception of constitutions and apostolic letters relating to doctrine or morals." So very false an assertion could never have been uttered by you, Venerable Brother, if you had looked at, and carefully examined, the terms of this Instruction : and here we give the terms of the 3rd Article of that Instruction :
"lit the Concordat of the Pontiff Benedict the XIII., the execution of Briefs and Apostolic Bulls is treated of, as can be read in that Concordat, in which only a simple visa is allowed, without permitting any signature or requiring any decree for the execution of the said Briefs or Bulls ; and ive knoiv that all has been faithfully executed, though it is said with great assurance, and though it is believed, that neither the Senate nor any other tribunal has accepted, at the instance of any person, the cognisance of the justice, or of the pretended injustice, of Bulls and Briefs. Wishing nevertheless to preserve harmony, if by chance any objection to the execution of a Butt or Brief should occur, and it should be desirable to understand the reasons for it, His Majesty's ministers being sufficiently instructed on the subject, shall inform cither the minister of the Holy See residing at Turin, or else the Apostolic minister residing at Home, of the fact. Bulls of Jubilees and Indulgences are exceptedfrom the simple visa, also the Briefs of the Holy Penitentiary and letters of the Sacred Congregations of Rome, which are tvritten to Ordinaries or to other persons as informations." And those rules relative to their execution have never been modified in the later conventions between the Apostolic See and the king of Sardinia.
Gregory XVI., by a Convention made in 1842, with the laie Jang of Sardinia, Charles Albert, on his personal immunity, restored in all their vigour all the preceding conventions in all things which were not disannulled by that said Convention.
Be fully persuaded, Venerable Brother, that our charge as Sovereign Apostolic Minister, and our Pontifical affection for you, have made it our duty to communicate these matters to you ; and we have complete confidence, considering your scrupulous piety,
N
178
that you will accept all the admonitions and instructions which have heen dictated by our heart : that you will hasten to follow them ; and that you will attach yourself firmly to them, and vigour- ously defend the rights and the pure doctrines of the Church, and inculcate on all the devotion and obedience due to the Apostolic See, to the vicar of Christ on earth ; and daily fulfil more fully, and above all other things, in these iniquitous times, all the duties of a good pastor.
Be certain that we honour you, that we appreciate you, and that we love yon with an affectionate ardour, and ice hope that the principal testimony of our benevolence and a good augury of all the blessings of lieaven may be contained in this Apostolic benediction icltich we with all the affection of our heart, bestow upon yon, Vena-able Brother, and upon all the flock confided to your care.
Given at Rome, near St. Peter's, the 26th of October, 1865, the 20th year of our Pontificate.
BETWEEN
HTJSSIA AND HOME;
BEING A TRANSLATION OF A DESPATCH
FROM PRINCE GORTCHAKOFF TO RUSSIAN REPRESENTATIVES ABROAD.
Further Beturn respecting the Eelations between Eussia and Eome ; being Translation of a Despatch from Prince Grortchakoff to Eussian Eepresentatives abroad.
Extract from t/te "Journal de St. Peter sbourg" of January 21
and 22, 1867.
ST. PETERSBURG, January 9, 1867.
Despatch from his Excellency the Vice- Chancellor Prince Gortcha- kqff to the Russian Embassies and Legations, dated St. Peters- burg, January 7, 1867.
The acts of the Court of Rome having made it impossible for His Majesty the Emperor to continue diplomatic relations with the Papal Government, it was found necessary to abandon the Concordat of 1847, which regulated the relations between the Imperial Cabinet and the Holy See. *
The Emperor's Ukase confirming this decision is known to you. This document limits itself to recording the abandonment of tbo
N 2
180
Concordat. It was not accompanied by statements destined to explain and give reasons for this measure.
This reserve, dictated to the Imperial Cabinet by a regard for the Holy See, was not maintained by the Papal Government.
It has just published a collection of documents, the object of which is to free the Holy See from all responsibility, and to cause it to fall entirely on the Imperial Cabinet. With this aim the collection records the progress • of this deplorable quarrel with partiality and inaccuracy.
The Court of Rome thus unburdens us from the scruples which restrained us. She summons us to the field of discussion, and makes it our duty to follow her.
The acts of our august Master do not fear the light.
You will find annexed to this a strictly true account of the acts which ended in the rupture of diplomatic relations between the two Courts.
You are authorized to give this document the publicity it deserves.
You will, at the same time, be careful to make it known that, in following the Court of Rome into this painful discussion, the Imperial Cabinet is actuated by no hostile intention towards the Holy See. Their only aim is to establish the truth.
The principles of religious toleration, and the constant solicitude of the Emperor for all creeds professed in his dominions, do not the less on that account remain invariable maxims of his political conscience.
As far as lies in the power of his Imperial Majesty, his Roman Catholic subjects shall not suffer for the cessation of the friendly relations which our august Master had tried to maintain with the Holy See, with respect to their religious interests.
181
ANNEX TO THE DESPATCH.
Historical Sketch of the Acts of the Court of Rome ivhich have brought about the rupture of Relations between the Holy Sec and the Imperial Cabinet, and the Abrogation of the Concordat of 1847.
The principle of religious toleration exists in the Government traditions as well as in the social customs of Russia. The exercise of foreign worship was legally admitted in the Empire under the reign of Peter the Great, subject to certain measures more de- fensive than prohibitive, and analogous with those adopted by most of the Catholic States themselves. Since that time those measures were comprehended in the fundamental laws of the Empire, and did not impede in any way the principle of the greatest toleration. The Government had in view solely to place the dominant Church out of reach of the Propaganda, and to guarantee the Sovereign- authority against the encroachments of the Court of Rome, by forbidding Russian subjects professing the Roman Catholic religion from having direct relations with a Pontiff who is at the same time a foreign Sovereign.
This Propaganda and these encroachments had developed themselves with impunity in the provinces of the Empire, whicli had been, during more than two centuries, subjected to the domination of the Polish. Republic. Hundreds of thousands of orthodox people were voluntarily or compulsorily converted to the Latin Church. And yet a much larger number were compelled by violent means, recorded by history, to recognize the supremacy of the Pope, in giving their adhesion to the combination, much more political than religious, known under the name of the Union. When those Provinces were liberated from the Polish domination, and again became Russian, the great Sovereign who brought about this glorious restoration, far from having recourse to reprisals, proved her toleration by establishing Catholic dioceses suitable to local wants, by defraying the expenses of the worship, founding seminaries, and entrusting the chief administration of
182
the interests of the Roman Catholic Church to an ecclesiastical college presided over hy a prelate equally virtuous and enlightened. But, meanwhile, the Empress Catherine expressed herself with perfect frankness to Pope Pius VI. as follows : —
" If, following the example of my ancestors, I choose to tolerate in my vast dominions all worships without exception, and among their number the Roman Catholic religion, I will never allow the followers of that faith to depend at all on any foreign Power. This is why all the Bulls and Edicts of the Court of Rome can only be published in Russia with the Sovereign's consent."
Catherine's successors did not depart from these principles.
When the fate of arms rendered the Emperor Alexander I. the master of Poland, His Majesty acted towards the Roman Church with no less generosity and confidence than towards the Polish nation.
The Romish clergy preserved all the privileges, lands, and in- fluence which they had acquired.
The crying abuses of clerical power and religious fanaticism, which had contributed to the downfall of Poland, were scarcely put an end to. But the clergy having taken part in the insurrec- tion of 1830 — participation which was admitted and reprobated by the Holy See itself, by the encyclical letter of August, 1832 — it became necessary to limit the influence which the clergy had so wilfully abused.
The Emperor Nicholas saw himself compelled, in consequence, to place a check upon the material means of action at the disposal of the Latin clergy in Russia and Poland.
To attain that end, a part of the very large estates accumulated by the Latin clergy were secularised and appropriated to the real requirements of worship ; the convents which were not inhabited by the canonical number of monks or nuns were suppressed ; and direct relations with the Holy See and all Latin propaganda were stringently prohibited.
The Court of Rome, which had previously admitted the existence of the evil, raised obstacles against the execution of the measures the most proper to cure it.
It protested against some of these measures, and refused its concurrence or strict adherence to the remainder.
183
In 1845, the Emperor Nicholas happened to be at Rome, and Gregory XVI. embodied the pretended grievances of the Holy See in a memorandum which he handed himself to the Emperor.
Two days after the Emperor answered that note, and his letter concludes thus : —
" The Emperor begs the Sovereign Pontiff to be firmly con- vinced that no one desires more than His Majesty to maintain in Russia, as in Poland, the Roman Church, on a footing at once dignified and respectable. The prayers of the Emperor embrace with an equal solicitude, and without any distinction of worship, the spiritual interests of all the peoples whose destinies have been entrusted to him by Providence. All that can be done to realize the intentions of the Holy Father, without materially clashing with the organic laws of the Empire, or injuring the rights and canons of the dominant Church, shall be done. The Emperor's word guarantees it to His Holiness. But, as has been observed above, there are circumstances and necessities from which it does not depend upon the will of the Emperor to free himself."
The Emperor's word was loyally fulfilled by the conclusion of the Concordat of 1847 ; it granted to the Roman Church all it was possible to grant within those limits.
But in Russia the Holy See has pretended at all times to the faculty of going beyond those limits.
" The essence of the Catholic religion is to be intolerant," wrote in June, 1804, the Cardinal-Secretary of State, Consalvi, to Cardinal Caprara.*
It is specially in Poland and in Russia that the Court of Rome has practised that principle.
In their quality of guardians of the laws of the empire, and protectors of the rights of the orthodox Church, the Sovereigns of Russia could not comply with such demands.
And such is the original cause of the endless differences between the Imperial Court and the Holy See, which, in conse-
* Memoir of Cardinal Consalvi. Correspondence with Cardinal Caprara on the coronation of Napoleon I.
184
qucnce of acts, the initiative of which was taken by Pius IX., and for which he must be held responsible, brought on the cessation of political intercourse and the abrogation of the Concordat of 1847.
This is proved by the succinct analysis of the relations between the two Courts under the reigning Sovereign.
The personal sentiments of the Emperor Alexander II. and his intentions towards the Latin Church are faithfully set forth in the following letter, addressed by his Majesty's order to his Minister at the Papal Court, dated 13th May, 1863 : —
' The principle of tbe liberty of conscience is deeply engraved in the conviction of my august Master ; but he understands it in all its purity, and not in the sense which the Church of Rome has given to it in all times, in claiming for the Catholic faith a freedom without limit, to the detriment of the other religions.
The orthodox Church in its spirit is neither militant nor propagandist, but it has the right of not being handed over defenceless to a Church which is both militant and propagandist. We do not and shall not try to carry off the flock of another pastor, but it is our right and our duty to see that our co-religionists should not be diverted from tbeir own faith. In a word, our Church is not oppressive. It would be strange to contend that in a country where the immense majority professes the orthodox faith the national Church should be placed in an inferior situation.
The Envoy Extraordinary sent by His Holiness to Russia to be present at the ceremonies of the coronation had an opportunity of seeing, by the reception given him by the Emperor, the sincere goodwill with which he was animated towards the Holy See.
Monsieur Chigi, sent by the Pope to represent His Holiness at the coronation, had also the mission of addressing to tbe Russian Government certain claims relative to the interpretation of some stipulations of the Concordat of 1847. His Holiness's Ambassador had the opportunity of acquiring the proof of the goodwill and intentions of the Emperor, who appointed a special
185
committee of high functionaries to inquire into the Holy See's claims.
The report of that committee was communicated to the Court of Rome, which has published it with other documents in the publication entitled " An Exposition, with documents annexed, of the constant endeavours of the Sovereign Pontiff Pius IX. to remedy the evils from which the Catholic Church suffers in Russia and Poland."
It shows that all the claims of the Holy See were conscien- tiously considered, and that ample and immediate satisfaction was given to each of those claims that was justly grounded, and not irreconcilable with the organic laws of the Empire and the Church of the State.
Although those concessions did not fully satisfy the Holy See, it preserved till 1859 an attitude relatively moderate.
In a letter addressed on the 31st January, 1859, by Pius IX. to the Emperor Alexander, the Holy Father paid homage " to the eminent qualities of his Majesty, and offered his most sincere thanks for having been enabled by the Emperor to fill up some of the vacant episcopal sees and suffraganships." Then the Holy Father, among other demands, asked to be permanently repre- sented in Russia.
The Emperor answered by renewing to His Holiness his assurances of lively and constant solicitude for the religious interests of his Roman Catholic subjects. His Majesty at the same time informed His Holiness that he had instructed his Minister at Rome to give explanations to Cardinal Antonelli, as to the details mentioned in the Pope's letter with the mutual candour and goodwill which preside over the relations of the two governments.
Unhappily, the Holy See had already begun then to depart from that sincerity and that benevolence which it completely threw aside during the sad events which occurred in Poland from 1858 to 1864.
The Emperor Alexander had inaugurated his reign by opening the gates of their country to some 9,000 exiled Poles. The kingdom was governed with us much mildness and tolerance as
186
possible. Reforms conceived in a very liberal spirit and
susceptible of future development were adopted.
• Provincial institutions were granted ; the freedom of the
individual was carefully guaranteed ; public instruction, finance,
and judicial institutions obtained the desired encouragement and
improvements.
All these benefits were received with distrust, or with an ohstinate ill-will which the most patient forbearance failed to disarm. The upper classes of Polish society organized and supported an agitation which, thanks to foreign encouragement and instigation, soon grew to he an insurrection.
The motives which prompted them to this course may be explained by a simple reference to date.
The abolition of slavery in Russia, which, first of all, seemed, to offer insurmountable obstacles, was in 1859 on its way to completion. * So vast a social reform would naturally extend to Poland, and bring about, by some means or other, the emancipa- tion of the rural population of the kingdom from the actual, if not acknowledged, state of servitude in which they are held. The aristocracy resolved to oppose, at any hazard, a reform which must, as an inevitahle consequence, sweep away the feudal power and privileges which they enjoyed. Deserting their past princi- ples, they encouraged the cosmopolitan revolution, which was brewing in anticipation of such a reform. The emancipation ukase was promulgated on the 28th of February, 1861.
On the 24th of the same month the Agricultural Society of Warsaw assuming the character of a constituent assembly, adopted the programme ratified by Mieroslawsky, who eight days after wrote from Paris, that " these resolutions should serve as the basis of a national rising."
From the origin of these troubles a large portion of the Roman clergy took part in the revolutionary preparations.
In 1858 more than twenty priests of the diocese of Plock were legally found guilty of having preached disobedience to the authority and of having provoked religious agitation under the pretext of establishing temperance societies.
Other Latin clergymen belonging to the government of Witebesk were convicted of having, in violation of the organic
187
laws, administered the Holy Sacraments to persons of the orthodox faith.
These intrigues were known to the Holy See. Mention of them is made in the collection of Roman documents (pages 154 and 160). But far from heing disapproved, the statement of the Secretary of State (page 38) praises those in fault, and recriminates against the Russian authorities.
This attitude on the part of the Papal Court, and the encour- agements lavished on them by Rome, through secret and illegal channels, as we shall show later, soon incited a large number of the Latin clergy of the kingdom to take that course by which they have so seriously compromised the dignity of the Christian priesthood and the religious and material interests of the flock which was entrusted to them.
Profiting by their influence over the lower classes of society, particularly the women, and by making use of that powerful weapon, the confessional, the clergy arranged and propagated the revolutionary organization. Religious fanaticism and the habit of constantly, and without scruple, interfering in temporal matters, together with the laxity of discipline among the regular and secular clergy, cemented this sacrilegious union between the Church and Revolution. The history of the part taken by the Romish clergy in the last revolution in Poland has been faithfully related in a published onicial document.*
We must of necessity record here some of the data contained in that document, in order that the part may be appreciated which the Court of Rome thought fit to play during the sorrowful events of which Poland was the scene.
The first demonstration of importance took place on the llth June, 1860, on the occasion of a funeral. The Franciscan monk, Spleszynski, here preached an extremely violent revolutionary sermon.
Immediately afterwards seditious exhortations resounded from the pulpits ; first at Warsaw, then in the provinces. Printed collections of revolutionary songs, and portraits of the coryphei of
* Report of the Special Commission appointed at Warsaw by supreme order in 1864.
188
the revolution were openly sold in almost every church. In the capital and in several other towns, the monks placed statues of the Virgin and the Saints, with lamps and lighted candles, in front of the monasteries, and exhorted the idle crowd to sing seditious songs.
These excitements often provoked deplorable scenes, as, for instance, at the door of the Church of the Sainte Croix, near Radom, after a sermon from the monk Bernardin Casimir, one of the principal promoters of religious assemblies, the mob nearly tore to pieces a man and woman, whom for some reason they suspected.
In 1861 began a series of processions, which were confessedly political demonstrations. At the same time, as if with the intention of proving that these were not the acts of individuals, but a systematic organised insurrection among the clergy, numerous meetings of secular priests and monks took place throughout the kingdom. At one of them, convoked on the 14th of November, at Lysa Grora, more than 300 priests and monks assembled to give seditious lectures and make public prayers for the success of the revolution.
The most numerous and important of these assemblies was that of the clergy of Podlachia, in November, 1862. There a resolution was unanimously adopted ratifying "the intimate and solid unison established between the clergy and the revolutionary party."
The deputies of other dioceses adhered to a programme of action strictly revolutionary, which only made reservations in favour of the rights of the Roman Catholic Church, and which imposed, among others, this obligation on members of the clergy : " They must put upon their oath all people charged with any operations by the central committee."
It is not unknown that most of these operations had assassina- tion in view, and it is grievous to record that several priests not only administered the oath to the operators, but also were themselves their associates or substitutes.
Suffice it to say, in summing up these data, that more than 500 Roman Catholic priests were legally convicted of direct and active participation in the bloody acts of the Polish insurrection.
189
At the very beginning of these criminal attempts the Imperial Cabinet informed the Holy See of them, and claimed the interference of the Pope's supreme authority to bring back the Latin clergy to the peaceable fulfilment of their holy duties. The first appeal having failed, and the Diocesan Chapter of "Warsaw having wished to increase popular agitation by closing the Churches, the Vice-Chancellor of the Empire addressed the following letter, dated October 9, 1861, to his Majesty's Minister at Home : —
" I send you a copy of a report from Count Lambert (the Emperor's Lieutenant at Warsaw) on recent events. By that you will see the part played by the Roman Catholic clergy of the kingdom — a part which has not varied from the first moment of the troubles. If they have caused the churches of Warsaw to be closed because they believe them to have been profaned, I think that they have done themselves justice. The profanation dates from the day on which human passions penetrated into the sacred building, and seditious hymns took the place of sounds of Christian piety. In this respect, certainly, there was profana- tion, and if the clergy, after purifying the churches, reopened them, determined only to tolerate in them that which the com- mandments of the Lord prescribe, they will only have done their duty. Yet I doubt whether that is the feeling which animates them. On the contrary, it occurs to me that it is their intention to extend their measure of closing the churches throughout the whole kingdom, to place the country, so to speak, under ecclesi- astical interdict, and to deprive the faithful of the grace of the Divine Word, in order to minister to passions altogether worldly. I should like still to be able to doubt their daring to go to this extreme ; if, in spite of warnings which have been given them on that subject, they overstep it, I shall fulfil my duty by denouncing the act to justice and to the justice of His Holiness.
" For the present I will not charge you with any formal application to the Holy See — I do not wish to renew to-day an appeal which has not been listened to — but I authorize you to lay before Cardinal Antonelli Count Lambert's letter, and that which I am now writing to you.
190
" The entire confidence I place in the intelligence of his Eminence forbids me to doubt his comprehending, in the very interests of religion, the object of the attitude of the Roman Catholic clergy of the kingdom, and acknowledging, when informed of what is passing, the necessity of remedying it."
This communication, supported by such convincing documents, was only evasively received. His Eminence Cardinal Antonelli, after having received the Pope's orders, said to M. de Kisseleff, that " His Holiness had disapproved, confidentially, the behaviour of the Polish clergy." But when his Majesty's Minister de- manded that this disapprobation should be publicly expressed, the Cardinal Secretary of State answered " that His Holiness was the less at liberty to interfere openly in this question, because the Polish clergy complain of the hindrances they encounter in the exercise of their religious duties, because the Holy See has no free and direct communication with them, and because, as it has no representative in Russia, it is without any official source of information, or any direct means of interfering with a body of clergy with whom it has no free or direct relations.*
Appreciating the gravity of the circumstances, and wishing to avoid the least excuse for ill-feeling, the Imperial Cabinet resolved to make a most important concession to the Holy See by sanction- ing the despatch of a Roman Prelate to Russia.
Prince Gortchakoff consequently addressed a despatch to M. Kisseleff, by his Majesty's orders, in which the following words occurred : —
" In transmitting to you the august words of His Holiness, his Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State detailed to you the complaints of the Polish clergy relative to the hindrances which they meet with in the exercise of their religious duties, and par- ticularly of the want of free and direct communication between the Holy See and their own clergy, which deprive the Court of Rome of all source of communication and all means of acting. His Eminence ended by letting you understand that His Holiness would have liked to have been able send some Prelate to Warsaw
* M. Kisseleff 's report, dated Eorae, 29th October (10th November), 1861.
191
to convey thither his advice and admonitions to the Roman Catholic clergy.
" If in the Russian Empire, as in many other countries, even those which profess the Roman Catholic religion, the relations between the clergy and an authority existing outside the State ought to be regulated by certain formalities, this is by virtue of a political principle generally allowed in Europe and a Concordat freely concluded with the Holy See. It could not, then, be derogatory to this rule, which in no way impedes the relations between the Catholic clergy and the Holy See, but limits itself to constituting its form and mode of proceeding.
" Our august Master considers it one of his most sacred duties to ensure the most complete liberty of conscience to all his sub- jects, and the fullest protection to all religious ministers, in the exercise of their spiritual mission, no matter what faith they belong to. In assigning to them as limits the laws prescribed by the general interests of the country, his Imperial Majesty only adopts a course in conformity with a necessity which exists for all sovereigns in every country. He does not think that, in enforcing on the clergy the condition of being forbidden to cause disorder, disunion, or scandal, these laws force on them obligations inconsistent with their mission of peace and charity, or which would not leave them the latitude necessary for its fulfilment. But, except in regard to these indispensable conditions, the Emperor has taken for his guidance, ever since his accession to the throne, the principles of the most extensive tolerance ; and you may reiterate, Sir, to his Eminence the Cardinal Secretary of State the assurance of the attention which his Majesty will always be ready to grant specially to the spiritual wants of his Roman Catholic subjects. It is with the object of giving a fresh proof of this that our august Master has taken into serious consideration the desire manifested by His Holiness to be able to send to Russia a prelate charged to convey his admonition and advice to the Polish clergy.
" The Emperor is disposed to consent to it as a proof of his affectionate deference for His Holiness.
" His Imperkl Majesty invokes the fullest light upon all his acts ; what he repels is calumny, which destroys confidence. A
192
delegate from His Holiness will be able to appreciate with his own eyes and to inform His Holiness faithfully of the true state of affairs. He will convince himself that the events which have actually occurred in the Kingdom of Poland are in no way caused by religion ; which has, on the contrary, been lowered, by dis- graceful profanation, into the arena of human passions." *
In making this communication, M. de Kisseleff let the Cardinal Secretary of State understand that the Imperial Cabinet would even be pleased to see the Prelate's provisionary mission changed to a permanent one. But whilst the Holy See "secretly" dis- approved of the behaviour of the Polish clergy, and profited by the state of affairs so as to ask for and obtain such important concessions, His Holiness wrote and caused to be conveyed to the Archbishop of "Warsaw, Monsignor Fialkowski, a brief containing nothing but encouragement to the Polish clergy, besides an ex- pression of his Pontifical sympathy for the wishes of the Polish people, which he termed legitimate, in spite of their violent and turbulent manifestations.
The existence of this brief had been revealed after the death of Archbishop Fialkowski by the publications of two organs devoted to the Court of Rome. It was scarcely possible to doubt its authenticity ; nevertheless, it was only in a doubtful manner that the Imperial Cabinet protested against the tenor of this brief, and against the illegality of its communication by any but the established channels.
The Cardinal Secretary of State, without exactly denying the existence of the brief, furnished M. de Kisseleff with the follow- ing explanations : —
' His Holiness," said he, " is obliged to defend himself against the accusations of not showing enough zeal in support of the interests of the Church.
"Besides, there was no brief, speaking strictly, but only a letter from the Pope, written in Latin, it is true, but not ' on parchment,' emanating from the Secretary of Latin Letters, and not from the Chancery of briefs. "f
'* Prince Gortchakoff's despatch to M. de Kisseleff, dated St. Petersburg, November 27, 1861.
t M. de Kisseleff's report, dated December 19 (31), 1861.
193
These subtleties did not at all diminish the weight of an Act emanating from the Sovereign Pontiff himself, the authenticity of which the Court of Rome to this day acknowledges, by inserting it (page 168, doc. 55) in the official collection which she has just published.
In the meanwhile, as the Archbishop of Warsaw, Monsignor Fialkowski, was deceased, the Court of Rome insisted 011 trie advisability of naming his successor promptly. The Imperial Cabinet immediately deferred to this wish by nominating the Abbe Feliiiski to the Archiepiscopal see.
His Holiness was pleased himself to tell M. de Kisseleff, during an audience granted to this minister on the 15 (27) December, 1861, how much this choice satisfied him, and "that he sincerely thanked the Emperor for his Majesty's sentiments and actions of good- will towards his own person, as well as with the intention of perfecting the friendly relations between the two Courts."
His Holiness, besides, expressed a wish that the Prelate whom he proposed to send on a temporary mission to Russia might remain there, with the title of permanent representative of the Holy See.
A short time afterwards (March, 1862), Cardinal Antonelli informed M. de Kisseleff, in confidence, that Monsignor Berardi had been nominated to discharge the functions of Nuncio at St. Petersburg.
But, at the same time, the Cardinal Secretary of State put a question to his Majesty's Minister which clearly denoted the intention of Rome only to accept so important a concession by redoubling its demands.
" Will the laws which forbid all direct communication between the Holy See and the Catholic clergy be applicable to the Legate?" asked his Eminence.