Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-n9wrp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-21T23:15:30.629Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Establishment of the English Province of the Society of Jesus

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

Thomas M. McCoog
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

And touching our Society be it known to you that we have made a league–all the Jesuits of the world, whose succession and multitude must overreach all the practices of England–cheerfully to carry the cross you shall lay upon us and never to despair of your recovery, while we have a man left to enjoy your Tyburn, or to be racked with your torments or consumed with your prisons. The expense is reckoned, the enterprise is begun, it is of God, it cannot be withstood. So the faith was planted, so it must be restored.

The Jesuit mission to England so proudly announced by Edmund Campion in 1580 was a venture hesitantly undertaken by the Society of Jesus. There was careful, prayerful discernment not only before Father General Everard Mercurian decided in its favour but also throughout its subsequent growth and development. According to the Formula of the Institute, in a sense the Jesuit rule, the purpose and goal of the Society was twofold: the salvation and sanctification of both the individual Jesuits and of their fellow men and women. The entire thrust of Ignatian spirituality was the consideration of the first in so far as it advanced the second. Ignatius urged that all the ordinary practices and customs of religious life be considered in the context of the apostolate and either executed or modified in so far as they advanced the order’s goals. Because of the stress that Ignatius had placed on the Society’s works, he was reluctant to prescribe any universally binding spiritual practices. Indeed, among the wide powers granted to the General in the order’s Constitutions was that to grant dispensations ‘in particular cases which require such dispensation, while he takes account of the persons, places, times, and other circumstances.’

Type
Research Article
Information
British Catholic History , Volume 17 , Issue 2 , October 1984 , pp. 121 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Catholic Record Society 1984

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Notes

1 Cons. 746.

2 In two significant articles, Christopher Haigh has scrutinized the Society’s strategy in the English mission. According to him, the Catholic community inherited by the seminary priests and the Jesuits was ‘if not a safe seat, at least a strong minority vote in need of careful constituency nursing.’ If the success of the seminary priests and the Jesuits was judged by ‘their ability to maintain party allegiance,’ theirs was not a missionary triumph but a failure. A major reason for the decline was the concentration on the gentry, which was a matter of policy and not of urgency. That the desire for close co-operation with the gentry was a conscious policy of the Society throughout the world cannot be denied, but in England strategy and necessity merged. Dr. Haigh has, I think, underestimated the effectiveness and the impact of the persecution. Although the penal laws were not universally and consistently enforced, their very existence posed a continual threat. Precautions had to be taken; plans for escape had to be formulated and sanctuaries located. The powerful and the influential were the only Catholics capable of harbouring priests. Nonetheless, the Jesuits did not desert the general population. Dr. Haigh does not give sufficient recognition to the Society’s attempts to extricate itself from the ever tightening embrace of the gentry, and its efforts to minister to the people outside the country estates. Throughout the late sixteenth and the seventeenth centuries, there were consistent attempts to establish Jesuit houses out of which the priests could operate without lay interference. Similarly, there was a consistent stress on the importance of the missionary circuit. Cf. Christopher, Haigh, ‘From Monopoly to Minority: Catholicism in Early Modern England,’ Transactions of the Royal Historical Society, 5th series, 31 (1981) 129–147 Google Scholar; The Continuity of Catholicism in the English Reformation,’ Past and Present 93 (1981) 37–69.

3 Cons. 618–632. Cf. also Gervais, Dumeige, ‘Obedience to the Pope and to the Superior of the Society,’ in The Formula of the Insitute (Rome, 1982) pp. 66–84.Google Scholar

4 Jesuit involvement might have been discussed earlier. An undated paper of William Allen, probably from 1575/6, suggested certain points to be discussed with the General in the hope of obtaining the Society’s co-operation (‘Some Correspondence of Cardinal Allen, 1579–85,’ edited by Patrick Ryan, S J. in CRS 9 (London, 1911), pp. 62–69.

5 Robert Parsons to William Good, after 19 March 1579, in Letters and Memorials of Father Robert Parsons, S.J., edited by Leo Hicks, CRS 39 (London, 1942), pp. 5–28.

6 ‘The Memoirs of Father Robert Parsons,’ edited by J. H. Pollen, in CRS 2 (London, 1906), pp. 194–5; Robert, Parsons, ‘Life and Martyrdom of Father Edmund Campion,’ Letters and Notices 11 (1877) 328–332 Google Scholar; Bernard, Basset, The English Jesuits (London, 1967) pp. 33–34.Google Scholar

7 Cons. 629.

8 There are two different versions of these instructions: the first, Stonyhurst College MSS A, V, 1(1), was printed with a translation, in CRS 39, pp. 316–321; the second, ARSI Instit 188, ff. 293–294. In footnotes in the printed version, Hicks discussed the differences between the two versions.

9 GC I d 108 (after the election), GC II d 36 (after the election), GC IV d 6 (after the election).

10 It is not possible to date exactly the change from rectorial to provincial authority but it had occurred before 24 March 1586. The instructions given to Henry Garnet and Robert Southwell on that date accorded to William Weston, the Jesuit superior in England, all the faculties given to provincials (CRS 39, pp. 355–357).

11 The bull was printed in Thomas, Francis Knox, ed., The Letters and Memorials of William Cardinal Allen (London, 1882) pp. 335–336.Google Scholar

12 Leo, Hicks, ‘Father Parsons, S.J. and the Seminaries in Spain,’ The Month 158 (1931) 31–34, 149Google Scholar.

13 Leo, Hicks, ‘The Foundation of the College of St. Omers,’ Archivum Historicum Societatis lesu 19 (1950) 174–175.Google Scholar

14 For the details of some of the problems, Basset, cf., The English Jesuits, p. 162 Google Scholar and Philip, Caraman, Henry Garnet and the Gunpowder Plot (London, 1964), pp. 172–173.Google Scholar

15 APSJ 46/5a/2 (Cardwell Transcripts III), ff. 368–377 (1598 edition) and ff. 387–400 (1606 edition). The latter was translated and printed in Francis, Edwards, ed., The Elizabethan Jesuits (London, 1981) pp. 298–307.Google Scholar

16 Cons. 5.

17 William Bangert, A History of the Society of Jesus (St. Louis, 1972) pp. 98–102, 110–113.

18 Antonio Astráin, in his brief discussion of this decree, made no mention of its specifically anti-English nature. The questions stemmed, he claimed, simply from the Spanish concern for the missions. Cf. Historia de la Compañia de Jesús en la asistencia de España (Madrid, 1912–1920) V, 8.

19 GC VII d 21.

20 ARSI Anglia 31/II, ff. 1-2.

21 Thomas Owen to Joseph Creswell, 21 May 1616, 2 July 1616, 30 July 1616, Rijksarchief Gent, Fonds Jezuieten 74, letters 3, 4, 5 (microfilm at APSJ).

22 ARSI Anglia 32/II, ff. 479–485v, 32/I, ff. 3–8.

23 Stonyhurst College MSS Anglia VII, 32.

24 Thomas Owen to Joseph Creswell, 21 May 1616, Rijksarchief Gent, Fonds Jezuieten 74, letter 3 (microfilm at APSJ).

25 Allison, A. F., ‘The Later Life and Writings of Joseph Creswell, S.J. (1556–1623)’, Recusant History 15 (1979) 91–92.Google Scholar

26 Thomas Owen to Joseph Creswell, 2 July 1616, Rijksarchief Gent, Fonds Jezuieten 74, letter 4 (microfilm at APSJ).

27 ARSI Anglia 33/I, pp. 803–804.

28 Historia Anglicanae Provinciae Societatis Iesu (St. Omers, 1660), pp. 436–437.

29 John Joseph Larocca, English Catholics and the Recusancy laws 1558–1625: A Study in Religion and Politics (unpublished PhD thesis, Rutgers University, 1977), pp. 300–305.

30 Charles Scribani to General Mutius Vitelleschi, 7 June 1619, APSJ 46/24/1 (Morris Transcripts), pp. 287–295; Vitelleschi to Scribani, 13 June 1619, APSJ 46/24/1 (Morris Transcripts), pp. 423–427.

31 Annual Letter of 1619/1620, APSJ 46/24/1 (Morris Transcripts), pp. 429–537, translated in Foley, Records, V, 987.

32 ARSI Anglia 32/II, ff. 129–130v; Anglia 32/I, ff. 127–129; General Mutius Vitelleschi to Richard Blount, 24 April 1621, ARSI Anglia l/I, ff. 135–136.

33 ARSI Congr 57, ff. 44–60; Anglia 32/I, ff. 102–104v, 123–126, 136–137. The Memorial and the General’s reply were translated in Letters and Notices 18 (1886) 344–353.

34 Noting the Jesuit desire to cultivate the English gentry, John Bossy argued that a consequence was the Jesuit acceptance of gentry domination. During the early days of the mission, especially during the superiorship of Henry Garnet, any money collected was placed in one fund for use throughout the kingdom. Later, according to Bossy, the large benefactions of the wealthy donors ‘were tied to areas of particular interest to the testators.’ As a result, the emerging organizational structure placed more emphasis on the local bodies ‘known as “districts” or “residences” ‘than on the centre. The devolution of financial control to the local units was a concession made to the gentry. Cf. The English Catholic Community, 1603–1625’, in Alan, G. R. Smith, ed., The Reign of James VI and I (London, 1973), 91–105 Google Scholar, and The English Catholic Community 1570–1850 (London, 1975), pp. 234–237. Bossy misunderstood the institutional movement. The stress on local bodies was not the result of the gentry’s domination of the Society. Colleges and residences were the usual units of government in the Society. They were established in England both for reasons of more efficient government and for the stability needed for provincial status. As we have noted, the Society’s Institute permitted colleges a regular source of income for the support of the students. Jesuits outside the colleges were to live from alms. Contrary to Bossy’s assertion, the founders of the first three colleges/ houses of probation in England did not restrict the revenue to specific areas but requested that any surplus be used for the other missioners and the scholasticates at Louvain.

35 ARSI Anglia 32/I, f. 96.

36 For Jesuit houses in England during the superiorship of Henry Garnet, cf. Caraman, Henry Garnet and the Gunpowder Plot, pp. 68, 123–126, 185–187, 242–243, 260–264.

37 ARSI Anglia 32/I, ff. 109–110v, 114–115.

38 ARSI Hist Soc 134, f. 91; General Mutius Vitelleschi to Richard Blount, 20 August 1622 and 26 November 1622, ARSI Anglia 1/I, ff. 161v-162, 165v.

39 ARSI Anglia 32/1, ff. 114–115.

40 ARSI Hist Soc 134, f. 91; Anglia 32/I, ff. 96, 109–110v, 114v-115.

41 ARSI Anglia 32/I, f. 115.

42 ARSI Anglia 32/I, ff. 125–126; Congr 57, ff. 49–50v, 55–60; General Mutius Vitelleschi to Richard Blount, 21 January 1623, Anglia l/I, ff. 167v–168.

43 General Mutius Vitelleschi to Richard Banks, 12 August 1623, ARSI Anglia l/I, f. 178v; same to Richard Blount, 12 August 1623, Anglia 1/I, ff. 179–180, 182v.