¹ The letter does not specify which Fribourg (or in German Freiburg), each of which had a Jesuit college. The Jesuit college in Freiburg im Briesgau had circa 20 Jesuits between 1685 and 1687; there were 26 at the college in Fribourg in Switzerland during the same period (Archivum Romanum Societatis Iesu [ARSI] Germ. Sup. 48, ff. 135^r–136^r, 175^v–176^r). If, as we shall see, we accept the explanation of Gilbert Burnet, the college was in Switzerland.

² I cannot identify this prince.

³ I have used the version published in Henry Foley, S.J., Records of the English Province of the Society of Jesus, 7 vols, in 8 (Roehampton/London, 1875–1883) V, pp. 157–59.Google Scholar

⁴ Forgers and Critics. Creativity and Duplicity in Western Scholarship (Princeton, 1990) p. 6.Google Scholar

⁵ Forgers and Critics, p. 8. See also p. 50.

⁶ Perhaps the classic illustration is the so-called Monita privata Societatis Iesu, better known as Monita secreta. See Sabina, Pavone, The Wily Jesuits and the Monita Secreta (St. Louis, 2005).Google Scholar

⁷ E.g. British Library, Add MS 44848, f. 153^v; British Library MS Stowe 152, ff. 23^r–v; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson C 807, ff. 116^r–v; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson D 356.18; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Ashmole MS 826, ff. 209^r–v; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Barlow 54 d (ff. 12^r–v); Oxford, Bodleian Library, Tanner 72, ff. 252^r–v; 82, ff. 210^r–v; 299, ff. 65^r–v; London, Inner Temple MS 538, vol. 18, ff. 404^v–406^v; Kew, National Archives, SP 16/99/22, 23. I have used the more accessible edition published in The Discovery of the Jesuits’ College at Clerkenwell’, edited by John, Gough Nichols, in The Camden Miscellany II (London, 1853) Camden Society, o.s. 55, pp. 33–40.Google Scholar Brother Henry Foley, S.J., included the letter in his Records, I, pp. 16–21. In note 29, p. 116, he mentions other manuscript copies which I have not consulted.

⁸ The ‘college’ itself was listed as one of the many threats to the English Church in a list of resolutions drafted by a sub-committee on 24 February 1628/29. The list can be found in Samuel, Rawson Gardiner, ed., The Constitutional Documents of the Puritan Revolution 1625–1660, 3rd edition revised (Oxford, 1906) pp. 77–82.Google Scholar

⁹ Cited in Reeve, L. J., Charles I and the Road to Personal Rule (Cambridge, 1989) p. 25.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

¹⁰ Buckingham and the Jesuits had at least indirect contact by reason of his mother's, Mary, Countess of Buckingham's, interest in and eventual conversion to Roman Catholicism, and the disputations over the relevant merits of the two churches. See Timothy H. Wadkins, Theological Polemic and Religious Culture in Early Stuart England: The Percy/‘Fisher’ Controversies, 1605–1641’ (unpublished doctorate thesis: Graduate Theological Union, Berkeley, California, 1988); and Timothy, H. Wadkins, ‘King James I Meets John Percy, S.J. (25 May 1622): An Unpublished Manuscript from the Religious Controversies Surrounding the Countess of Buckingham's Conversion’, Recusant History 19 (1988) pp. 146–54.Google Scholar

¹¹ See Glyn, Redworth, The Prince and the Infanta. The Cultural Politics of the Spanish Match (New Haven/London, 2003)Google Scholar for most recent scholarship on this pivotal religious and diplomatic venture.

¹² On Charles and Arminianism, see Julian, Davies, The Caroline Captivity of the Church. Charles I and the Remoulding of Anglicanism (Oxford, 1992).Google Scholar

¹³ On the forced loan, see Richard, Cust, The Forced Loan and English Politics 1626–1628 (Oxford, 1987).Google Scholar

¹⁴ Written by John Hacket, later Bishop of Lichfield and Coventry, this Latin play was staged for King James I on his visit to Cambridge on 12[?] March 1622/23; Loiola was later published (London, 1648, Wing H 170). See Nichols, ‘Discovery’, p. 38 n. The Jesuit chorus included Ignatius Loyola, Francis Xavier, Juan de Mariana, Claudio Acquaviva, Robert Parsons and Edmund Campion; the chorus of Jesuit virtues- included blind obedience, pseudo-miracles, equivocation, regicide, arrogance, and a type of censorship (‘index expurgatorius’). Loyola had been canonized a year earlier, on 12 March 1622. I do not think the dating of the Cambridge play is coincidental.

¹⁵ ‘Discovery’, pp. 10–11.

¹⁶ ‘Supplementary Note to The Discovery of the Jesuits’ College at Clerkenwell’, The Camden Miscellany IV (London, 1858) Camden Society, o.s. 73, p. 4.Google Scholar

¹⁷ Similarly a Letterfrom St. Omers to a friend in London (London, 1681, Wing B36), written by B.B., contained secret instructions given to some Jesuits. The author had obtained a copy from a friend. According to this letter, the Popish plot was ‘no other but a holy Combination to propagate the Catholick Faith, and to extirpate that British heresie, the accomplishment whereof, much honor would not only redound to God, but much emolument to the Church…’

¹⁸ John, Gurney, ‘Maynard, Sir John (1592–1658)’, in Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, XXXVII, pp. 596–98.Google Scholar Interestingly Maynard is not mentioned in Roger, Lockyer, Buckingham. The Life and Political Career of George Villiers, First Duke of Buckingham 1592–1628 (London/New York, 1981).Google Scholar See also Jason, Peacey, Politicians and Pamphleteers. Propaganda during the English Civil Wars and Interregnum (Aldershot, 2004).Google Scholar

¹⁹ John Dryden's Absalom and Achitophel depicted the Duke of Monmouth and Anthony Ashley Cooper, Earl of Shaftesbury, as rebels against King Charles II.

²⁰ John Kenyon's The Popish Plot (London, 1972) remains the standard treatment of the episode.

²¹ This pamphlet is but one example of the propaganda generated during the Exclusion Crisis. Michael Mullet estimates nearly 200 anti-Catholic pamphlets and broadsheets were printed between 1679 and 1681 (James II and English Politics 1678–1688 [London/New York, 1994] p. 26).

²² John, Miller, James II (New Haven/London, 2000) p. 192.Google Scholar

²³ This tract was reprinted in The Harleian Miscellany, vol. IX (London, 1810) pp. 244–48.Google Scholar The editor ‘only collect[s] what I believe to be genuine; and that I have examined the historical facts here mentioned, and find them in good and approved authors; that I will never publish any thing through partiality’.

²⁴ Correspondence between Keynes and Rome clearly shows that Keynes had been in Belgium between August and November of 1686. He seems to have been back in London by mid-November. See ARSI, Anglia 2/II, ff. 465^v 466^v, 467^v.

²⁵ We know from official letters that Clare was in London in early winter of 1686. He was back in Watten by 21 December. In a letter written on that date Father General Charles de Noyelle congratulated Clare on his successful mission to London, and hoped that the letter to La Chaise would have beneficial results. See Father General to Clare, Rome 21 December 1686, ARSI, Anglia 2/II, f. 468^v.

²⁶ James concluded his letter to the Jesuit general with ‘Vester bonus amicus’ (ARSI, Epp. Ext. 36, f. 222^v).

²⁷ He named John Warner before the provincial congregation convened in either April or May of 1687. The anti-Jesuit tradition accuses Jesuits of exploiting their position as confessor and of watering down moral principles to gain favour. See Pavone, Wily Jesuits, pp. 14, 99–113, 217–18, 220–21.

²⁸ John Miller disparages Petre: ‘his standing at court owed nothing to his standing in the English Province of the Society of Jesus, which was lowly, or to his abilities, which were limited. His main interest seems to have been his own advancement. He persuaded James to pester the Pope to make him either a bishop or a cardinal and was furious when the Pope refused… There is little evidence that he had any serious ideas of his own, outside the purely ecclesiastical sphere, but his influence and lack of political sense made him a powerful if unreliable instrument which could be manipulated by cleverer men’ (James II, pp. 149–50). One would be interested in impartial evidence that could be advanced to substantiate this judgement.

²⁹ Interestingly the letter says nothing about Ferdinando d'Adda papal envoy, who arrived in November of 1685. He assumed the title and office of papal nuncio sometime in the spring of 1687 (Miller, James II, p. 152).

³⁰ James first requested ecclesiastical honours for Petre in a letter to Pope Innocent XI on 9 October 1685. For a survey of the correspondence see Cecil, C. Longbridge, ‘The Guilt or Innocence of the Jesuit Father Petre, Member of the Privy Council under James the Second’, The Month 58 (1886) 378–96; 525–48;Google Scholar 59 (1887) 75–88. I have identified only one letter from James to the Jesuit superior general on this theme (Whitehall, 22 December 1687). This letter and a copy of the general's reply (Rome, 7 February 1688) can be found in ARSI, Epp. Ext. 36, ff. 222^r–223^v.

³¹ Although the different versions of this letter, discussed later in this article, clearly say the chapel of the vice-chancellor, this is a mistake. The most prominent Catholics at Oxford during this period were Obadiah Walker, Master of University College, and John Massey, Dean of Christ Church. See Beddard, R. A., ‘James II and the Catholic Challenge’ in The History of the University of Oxford. Volume IV. Seventeenth-Century Oxford, ed. Nicholas Tyacke (Oxford, 1997) pp. 907–54.Google Scholar Walker named the Jesuit Joseph Wakeman chaplain; Massey had been received into the Roman Church by an unnamed Jesuit, but his chaplain was a diocesan priest, John Ward (vere Rogers) despite frequent claims that he too was a Jesuit. See Godfrey Anstruther, O.P., The Seminary Priests. Volume 2: Early Stuarts 1603–1659 (Great Wakering, 1975) p. 269.

³² We know from the catalogue for 1687 that Ruga and Dormer preached at court. The catalogue also mentions Antonio Iudicii, William Pordage and John Persall at the English court; Hugh Cullenan, Benedict de Lemos and Augustine Laurentius at the court of the Dowager Queen Catherine of Braganza; James Blake at the Portuguese embassy; and Marc d'Aubeil at the French embassy (ARSI, Angl. 12, ff. 26^v–27^r). The catalogue says nothing about the activities of Neville or Alexander Keynes. However, we do know from other sources that the secular clergy who had run the chapel known variously as Stamford's/Stanford's Chapel, Lime Street Chapel, or Chapel of the Elector Palatine, were replaced by Jesuits, specifically Alexander Keynes, in late 1686. See Gregory, Macdonald, ‘The Lime Street Chapel’, Dublin Review 180 (1927) pp. 253–65;Google Scholar 181 (1927) pp. 1–16. Incidentally Macdonald considered the ‘Letter from a Jesuit of Liège’ ‘doubtful’ (p. 11).

³³ The province took possession of the Savoy College on the eve of Pentecost, that is 24 May 1687, The college officially opened significantly on Pentecost. See ‘Annual Letter 1685–1690’ translated in Foley, Records, V, pp. 150–51. In April or May of 1687, the province held a congregation somewhere in London, possibly in St. James's Palace, to elect delegates for the general congregation convened upon the death of Charels de Noyelle on 12 December 1686. At this meeting the assembled fathers approved the site and plans for the new college. King James extended his royal friendship to the Society through his special greetings, but he also asked a favour: he preferred that neither Edward Petre, his Clerk of the Closet and a member of the Privy Council, nor John Warner, his confessor, be elected as delegates. He insisted that he needed them in England. His request was granted. See ‘Annual Letter 1685–1690’ in Foley, Records, V, 264–65. Oddly the provincial did not attend the general congregation. Perhaps he too was deemed essential for the greater glory of God in England. The general congregation itself praised James's apostolic zeal and thanked him for all he did for the Society, the Church, and the greater glory of God (ARSI, Congr. 3, ff. 27^r; 59^r–v). The second is a letter from the secretary of the congregation to James,’ Rome 6 September 1687.

³⁴ See Miller, James II, p. 178 for details.

³⁵ Most likely this is Robert Spencer, Earl of Sunderland.

³⁶ Through this ‘closeting campaign’, James hoped to secure a Parliament that would support his legislation. See Miller, James II, pp. 163–66, 178–79.

³⁷ William Herbert, Marquis of Powis, and John, Lord Bellasis, were the more noted moderate Catholics who advised James to proceed slowly and cautiously (Miller James II pp. 176–77).

³⁸ James did in fact write a long letter to Mary in November of 1687 in which he explained the motives and reasons for his becoming a Catholic perhaps with the hope that she would imitate him (Miller, James II, p. 177). William and Mary were prepared to tolerate Catholics but not to rescind the Test Act.

³⁹ Records, V, p. 157.

⁴⁰ 3 vols. (London, 1707–1718) III, 811–813. The same letter later subsequently appeared in Paul, Rapin de Thoyras, The History of England, translated by N. Tindal, 2 vols. (London, 1733) II, pp. 756–57;Google Scholar and James, Ralph, The History of England during the Reigns of K William, Q Anne, and K George I (London, 1744) pp. 941–42.Google Scholar Rapin de Thoyras dated the letter 2 February 1684 (sic). Both Rapin de Thoyras and Ralph cite Burnet's information.

⁴¹ Johann Heinrich Heidegger (1633–1698) was a noted Swiss theologian.

⁴² Everard van der Weede, Sieur de Dijkveld, was sent as ambassador from the Dutch Republic to England in early 1687.

⁴³ ARSI, Anglia 35, ff. 114^r–115^r; Oxford, Bodleian Library, Clarendon MS 89, ff. 13^r–14^v. The Roman copy is endorsed ‘De bono animo Regis Angi. ergo [reading doubtful] Societ’ (f. 115^v). There is no suggestion that the Jesuit authorities questioned its accuracy.

⁴⁴ Oxford, Bodleian Library, Rawlinson MS A 189, ff. 74^r–75^v. Another French copy can be found entitled ‘Copie de la lettre d'un Jésuite de Liège écrite a un Jésuite de Fribourgh’ can be found at the Beinecke Library at Yale University, William Blathwayt papers, OSB MSS 2, Box 5, Folder 109. I thank Dr. Maurice Whitehead for this information.

⁴⁵ Oxford, Bodleian Library, MS Eng mise c 107, ff. 13^r–15^v. Another English copy has altered the title significantly ‘A letter written by a Jesuit at London to the College at Liège, intercepted and carried to the Prince of Orange’ with the date 2 February 1688/89 (New Haven, Yale University, Beinecke Library, John Browne Commonplace Book, Osborne fb 155, pp. 513–515). Again I thank Dr. Maurice Whitehead.

⁴⁶ English Catholic Books 1641–1700: A Bibliography (Chicago, 1974) p. 128.Google Scholar There is no reference whatsoever in the revised edition presumably because it was not a Catholic work (Aldershot, 1996).

⁴⁷ Elizabeth Cellier, a Catholic mid-wife, was tried for treason during the Popish Plot hysteria and later pilloried for libel. Early in the reign of James II, she proposed the foundation of a hospital for foundlings, and a college of midwives. See Frances, E. Dolan, ‘The Wretched Subject the Whole Town Talks of’: Representing Elizabeth Cellier (London, 1680)Google Scholar in Catholicism and Anti-Catholicism in Early Modern Texts, ed. Marotti, Arthur F. (London, 1999) pp. 218–58.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

⁴⁸ Interestingly the unknown editor and translator of an edition of the infamous anti-Jesuit Monita secreta printed in Cologne in 1678 draws attention to the same works (pp. 12, 14). Perhaps feigning Catholic sympathies, he argues that ‘it is necessary for the preservation of the public Peace, and the safety of all Kingdoms, that his Holiness the Pope, with the assistance of other Christian Princes, do assign some Bounds to this Society, whose Ambition is now mounted to an incredible both disorder and excess, for fear the Remedy being delayed, the Mischief should become incurable’ (p. 17). An English translation of this edition appeared as The Cabinet of the Jesuits Secrets Opened (London, 1679) Wing C 189. An earlier English edition apparently translated out of a French version of the Monita secreta, specifically The Jésuites Intrigues: with the private instructions of that Society to Their Emissaries (London, 1669; Wing J 717) makes the same claims (pp. 16, 19, 24). There was a second edition (London, 1679; Wing J 717A). The first known English edition of the Monita secreta, translated from the Latin, appeared in A further Discovery of the Mystery of Jésuitisme (London, 1658; Wing J 490). A further Discovery is a collection of six anti-Jesuit works, the first two of which were written by the French former Jesuit apostate Pierre Jarrige (who later recanted, repudiated his scurrilous treatises, and turned to France as a diocesan priest). Interestingly a separate treatise A Discovery of the Society in relation to their Politicks becomes the above cited introduction to later editions of the Monita secreta. In this version, however, the anonymous pope in the above quotation is specified as Paul V whose pontificate lasted from 1605 to 1621. The Monita secreta demonstrated that Jesuits, in the words of Pavone, ‘were scheming, two-faced, and interested solely in forwarding their own interests’ (Wily Jesuits, p. 2) on the basis of secret instructions known only to the highest echelon of Jesuits, discovered by chance and published to prevent Jesuit success. The Monita secreta proved what English Protestants had already known from their own, indigenous anti-Jesuit tradition.

⁴⁹ The Jesuit's Memorial, for the Intended Reformation of England, Under their first Popish Prince, ed. Edward, Gee (London, 1690).Google Scholar

⁵⁰ The History of England, 10 vols. (London, 1849) X, pp. 287–88.Google Scholar

⁵¹ A Collection of Scarce and Valuable Tracts… particularly that of the late Lord Somers, 2nd edition revised by Walter Scott, 13 vols. (London, 1809–1815) IX, 75–76. The Three Letters can be found on pp. 76–86. Another letter from La Chaise to Petre follows with the title ‘Father La Chaise's Project for the Extirpation of Heretics’, pp. 86–88.

⁵² ‘Pioneer Jesuit Journalists 1697–1688’, The Month 194 (1952) 289 n. In his exoneration of Petre, Cecil C. Longbridge claims that all three letters are forgeries intended to prompt Holland into taking action against James. See ‘Guilt of Innocence’, pp. 528–31.

⁵³ See Thomas M. McCoog, S.J., ‘Apostasy and Knavery in Restoration England: The Checkered Career of John Travers’, The Catholic Historical Review 78 (1992) pp. 395–412.Google Scholar

⁵⁴ For more details on the effect of the plot on the finances and structures of the province see Thomas M. McCoog, S.J., ‘The Society of Jesus in England, 1623–1688: An Institutional Study’ (University of Warwick: unpublished Ph.D. thesis, 1984).Google Scholar I am grateful to Dr. Maurice Whitehead for the information regarding Stapleton's correspondence with the nuncio.

⁵⁵ Miller, James II, pp. 133–34.

⁵⁶ Ignatius of Loyola, The Constitutions of the Society of Jesus, translated by George E. Ganss, S.J. (St. Louis, 1970) [673] p. 292.Google Scholar

⁵⁷ See Lois, G. Schwoerer, ‘Propaganda in the revolution of 1688–89’, American Historical Review 82 (1977) pp. 843–74Google Scholar for the effective use of different types of propaganda by, among others, Gilbert Burnet.