

Transcribed from the 1852 Burns and Lambert edition by David Price, email
ccx074@pglaf.org





                               THE JESUITS:


                                    A
                              CORRESPONDENCE
                    RELATIVE TO A LECTURE SO ENTITLED,
                      RECENTLY DELIVERED BEFORE THE
                     ISLINGTON PROTESTANT INSTITUTE,
                                  BY THE
                         REV. EDWARD HOARE, M.A.,
                _Incumbent of Christ Church_, _Ramsgate_.

                                * * * * *

    “Thus men go wrong with an ingenious skill,
    Bend the straight rule to their own crooked will,
    And with a clear and shining lamp supplied,
    First put it out, then take it for their guide.”

                                             _Cowper’s Progress of Error_.

                                * * * * *

                                 LONDON:
                  BURNS AND LAMBERT, 17 PORTMAN STREET,
                             PORTMAN SQUARE.

                                  1852.

                                * * * * *

       W. Davy and Son, Printers, 8, Gilbert-street, Oxford-street.

                                * * * * *




INTRODUCTION.


IN a Lecture on the Jesuits, recently delivered before the Islington
Protestant Institute by the Rev. EDWARD HOARE, M.A., Incumbent of Christ
Church, Ramsgate, and since published, there occurs the following passage
with the note subjoined:—“It would not be fair to attach to the Order the
opinions of the individual, unless these can be proved to be fully borne
out and sanctioned by the fixed and authoritative documents of the
Society.  Nothing, however, can be clearer, than that the sentiments then
expressed, [_i.e._, alleged to have been expressed on an occasion before
referred to], were those not of the man, but of the Order; for although
there is an exceptive clause inserted in one of the Constitutions, as if
for the relief of unseared consciences, so that the Statute runs thus,
‘Conforming their will to what the Superior wills and thinks in all
things, where it cannot be defined that any kind of sin interferes;’ {3}
yet a little further on there is another section wherein that clause is
wholly nullified, and the original principle boldly asserted.  ‘Although
the Society desires that all its Constitutions, &c., should be
undeviatingly observed, according to the Institute, it desires,
nevertheless, that all its members should be secured or at least assisted
against falling into the snare of any sin which may originate from the
force of any such Constitutions or injunctions; therefore, it hath seemed
good to us in the Lord, with the express exception of the vow of
obedience to the Pope for the time being, and the other three fundamental
vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, to declare that no
Constitutions, declarations, or rule of life, can lead to an obligation
to sin, mortal or venial.’  Thus far all is well; what more can be
required?  But now mark the next passage.  ‘_Unless the Superior may
command them in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ_, _or in virtue of the
vow of obedience_; _and this he may do whenever_, _and to whomsoever_,
_he may judge it conducive either to individual good or to the universal
well-being of the Society_.  And in the place of the fear of offence, let
the love and desire of all perfection succeed; that the greater glory and
praise of Christ our Creator and Lord may follow.’  So that the poor
Jesuit may be compelled to commit what he knows to be a mortal sin at the
bidding of his Superior.  He may clearly see it to be utterly opposed to
every principle of Scripture; his own conscience may turn from it with
horror; his moral sense may utterly condemn it; he may see clearly that
he is flying in the face of the most High God; but on he must go, because
his Superior bids him; and in order to obtain an object, which the
Superior considers conducive to the interests of the Society, he must
freely consent to have his deepest convictions wholly disregarded, and
his principles of moral rectitude for ever crushed within his soul.” {4}

The present writer is the person alluded to in the note as having
complained of this shocking statement, and stated what is the true
meaning of the Constitution of which it is such an utter perversion.
What he said on the subject forms his portion of the following
correspondence.  The publication of the entire correspondence that passed
on the occasion, will, it is hoped, afford Mr. Hoare’s readers the
readiest means of determining for themselves whether the accusation he
has brought is sustainable or not.

The writer may advert here to a consideration which was overlooked in the
course of the correspondence by