« ForrigeFortsæt »
reducing the natives of a barbarous country to a state of civilization and refinement: but, if it cannot be shewn that Any such means of instruction were put in practice for the attainment of this beneficial end, the praise of having accomplished it must remain due to those by whose exertions it was effected. If better instruments might have been employed, the only questions are, why were they not ? to whom are we to impute the crime of such negligence and delay? and to whom, on the other hand, must we ascribe the merit of zeal and earnestness in defending the cause which they had undertaken to advocate, and in so promptly executing the laborious work which they conceived it possible to accomplish ? Such, and such only, is the limited portion of approbation which we are willing to concede to the Society, from a consideration of the benefits derived from it: but great and weighty will be the balance of evils to be placed in the opposite scale; so great, that an unprejudiced mind, we conceive, will find little difficulty in coming to a decision with respect to the claims of the Jesuits to the suffrages of mankind, either for their past exertions, or on the score of what is perhaps still more doubtful, the probability of future beneficial effects from their restoration.
That this question may be distinctly understood, we shall endeavour briefly to examine the merits of the Jesuits in a political and a moral point of view. If we consider them in the former light, the first idea, which presents itself to our minds, is founded on the danger of that notorious political evil, the imperium in imperio, the independent, self-constituted, and arbitrary authority which, though in their infancy unwilling to avow it, they at last claimed and exercised over all their followers. When we trace the progress of the Society through the different nations of Europe, we are unable to discover any political benefit which it has produced : it was the author of no wise regulations, it effected no reformation of manners, it reconciled no great dissensions, it established no general tranquillity; — on the contrary, after having for some time experienced and judged of its effects, the minds of far the greater portion of the European sovereigns were alienated from the Society, and those not merely of the Protestant party, but such as were zealously attached to the Roman Catholic church. The King of Portugal, conscious of the crimes which the Jesuits had committed within his dominions, shut up their schools, and banished them from his territories by public decrees.' Genoa and Leghorn, imitating this example, refused them an asylum; and the republic of Venice and the kingdom of Naples did
The Empress of Austria closed the doors of the University of Vienna against them. Lastly, Henry the Fourth of France was so apprehensive of the pernicious influence which they exercised over the minds of his people, that he declared to the Duc de Sully that he must either admit them absolutely and without conditions, or reject them more absolutely than ever, and adopt every kind of severity towards them; “ in which case,” said he, « they will conspire against my life, and I shall be constantly exposed to the danger of being either poisoned or assassinated: for these persons have an intelligence and a correspondence every where, and possess peculiar facility in influencing others to adopt their opinions.” It will appear, then, that the Society has given offence where it professed to lend support, and has either abandoned the interests or militated against the views of those whom it promised to befriend. If such have been the evils which it has produced among its earliest favourites and associates, where might be the boundary of its noxious influence, if it were again admitted, among its adversaries ? Ought we not to consider it, moreover, as a corrupt branch of a corrupt tree; as the avowed enemy which it has hitherto been our glory to have defeated; as the offspring of a tyrant whose yoke we have boldly shaker off, and against whose arbitrary government we have successfully protested in the brightest periods of our history?
Reflecting, secondly, on the merits of the Society in a moral point of view, we cannot but fully agree with the author of this history that little would be gained, even if much were not lost, by any kind of coalition with an Institute of so equivocal and suspicious a character, whose steps have hitherto been so rarely marked by any thing but anarchy, corruption, and misery. An institute of human origin, purporting to be a friend to the cause of religion, and yet pretending (as it would seem) to set up its own views separate from those of Christianity, - its own interest as the object to which every other is to be sacrificed, — and its own regulations as of greater obligation than the laws of God and of truth, — can surely have but little claim to be ranked in the number of those salutary establishments which the wisdom of man has provided to controul the passions, to correct the errors, and to foster the virtues of his fellow-mortals.
On this point, our sentiments are so firmly fixed, that we are unwilling to widen the breach between ourselves and those who may differ from us in the above opinion by farther enlarging on it in this place; and we shall close our remarks with some general observations on the remaining portion of the volumes before us. It consists chiefly of an appendix to the reply to Mr. Dallas, and treats of the education of the