the institution of Jesuits by his bull, and granted the most ample privileges to the members of the order.

The order of the Jesuits are peculiar in the operations. The primary object of almost all their monastic orders is to separate men from the world, and from any concern in its affairs. They can be of no benefit to mankind but by their example and prayers. On the contrary, the Jesuits consider themselves as formed for action. They are required to attend to all the transactions of the world, on account of the influence which these may have upon religion; they are directed to study the disposition of persons in high rank, and to cultivate their friendship, and, by the very constitution and genius of their order, a spirit of action and intrigue is infused into all its members.

From their first institution, the Jesuits considered the education of youth as their peculiar province; they aimed at being spiritual guides and confessors; they preached frequently, in order to instruct the people; they set out as missionaries to convert unbelieving nations.

Before the close of the sixteenth century they had obtained the chief direction of the education of youth in every Catholic country in Europe. They had become the confessors of all its monarchs, a function of no small importance. They were the spiritual guides of almost every person eminent for rank or power; possessed the highest degree of confidence and interest with the papal court; and, at different periods, the direction of the most considerable courts in Europe; they mingled in all affairs, and took part in every intrigue and revoness, had openly declared war against the church, Ignatius raised the standard in the defence of religion."- "The sacrifice of the mass, the eucharist, the virgin mother of God, the guardian angels, and the indulgences of the popes, which Luther attacks with so much fury, are the objects which Ignatius and his companions exert themselves continually to celebrate by new inven tions and indefatigable industry."- "To Luther, that disgrace of Germany, that epicurean swine, that curse of Europe, that monster destructive of the whole earth, bateful to God and man, &c. God by his eternal decree hath opposed his son Ignatius."

lution. Under the pretext of promoting the success of their missions, and of supporting their missionaries, they engaged in an extensive and lucrative commerce, both in the East and West Indies; and had their warehouses in different parts of Europe. Not satisfied with trade alone, they imitated the example of other commercial societies, and aimed at obtaining settlements.

They acquired possession of the large and fertile province of Paraguay, which then stretched across South America, from the bottom of the mountains of Potosi to the confines of the Spanish and Portuguese settlements, on the banks of the river De la Plata.

In this country it must be confessed that the Jesuits were of some service; they found the inhabitants in a savage state, subsisting by hunting and fishing; and hardly acquainted with the first principles of subordination and government. The Jesuits set themselves to instruct and civilize these savages; they taught them to cultivate the ground, build houses, and brought them to live together in villages, &c. They trained them to arts and manufactures, and such was their power over them, that a few Jesuits presided over some hundred thousand Indians.

But at length the power and influence of the Jesuits became so formidable, that the nations of Europe found it expedient to check their progress. They were expelled from England in 1604; Venice in 1606; Portugal in 1759; France in 1764; Spain and Sicily in 1767; and finally were suppressed by pope Clement XIV. in 1773.

In 1814, however, the pope issued a bull for re-establishing the order of the Jesuits, and it is believed that human society is fearfully menaced by the revival of this atrocious order, whose principles engender and promote private and public collision and disorder. When their order was abolished in France, in 1764, the arret of the parliament of Paris states, as the ground of the expulsion of the Jesuits, that "the consequences of their doctrines destroy the law of nature; break all the bonds of civil society, by authorizing theft, lying,

perjury, the utmost uncleanness, murder, all criminal passions and all sins; root out all sentiments of humanity; overthrow all governments; excite rebellion; and extinguish the foundation and practice of religion, and substitute all sorts of superstition, blasphemy, irreligion, and idolatry." This will appear to have some foundation by the following quotations from their most celebrated authors; and it may be premised that these are the dogmas ever taught and practised by Jesuits, in all places, whenever they deem it expedient to forward their designs.

The passages relating to chastity, found in Jesuit authors, are purposely omitted, being too abominable for public perusal. The following passages are but few, among many others of the same import, which might be selected.

1. Escobar, Theolog. Moral. Vol. 4. Lib. 34. Sect. 2. Prob. 16. page 348. "A child who serves his father, may secretly purloin as much as his father would have given a stranger for his compensation."

2. Cardenas, Crisis Theolog. Diss. 23. Cap. 2. Art. 1. page 474. "Servants may secretly steal from their masters as much as they judge their labour is worth, more than the wages which they receive." To this agrees Tuberna.

3. Gordonus, Theolog. Moral. Univ. Lib. 5. Quest. 3. Cap. 4. page 826. "A woman may take the property of her husband, to supply her spiritual wants, and to act like other women." [In plain English, wives and daughters may steal from their husbands and fathers, to satisfy their confessor priest!]

4. Emmanuel Sa, Aphorism. verbo Furtum, page 161. "It is not mortal sin to steal that from a man which he would have given if asked for it. It is not theft to take any thing from a husband or father, if the value be not considerable."

5. Francis Xavier Fegeli, Pars. 3. Cap. 6. Quest. 11. Page 158. "After a son has secretly robbed his father as a compensation, the confessor need not enforce restitution, if he has taken no more than the just reward of his labour."

6. Sanchez, Op. Moral. Precept. Decal. Pars. 2. Lib. 3. Cap. 6. Num. 13. "It is lawful to use ambiguous terms, to give the impression a different sense from that which you understood your-. self. A person may take an oath that he has not done such a thing, though in fact he has, by saying to himself it was not done on a certain specified day, or before he was born, or by concealing

any other similar circumstance, which gives another meaning to it. This is extremely convenient, and is always very just, when necessary to your health, honour, or prosperity. A man who makes, whether sincerely or in dissimulation, a contract of marriage, dispensed, by any motivé, from accomplishing his promise."

7. Filiucius, Quest. Moral. vol. 2. Tract. 25. Cap. 11. Num. 328. "With what precaution may we equivocate? By intending to use only material words. A person may begin to say, I swear, he can add this mental restriction, to-day, or in a whisper he may repeat, I say, and then resume his former tone-I did not do it."

8. Charli, Prop. 6. page 8. "He who is not bound to state the truth before swearing, is not bound by his oath, provided he makes the internal restriction that excludes the present case."

9. Taberna, Vol. 2. Pars. 2. Tract. 2. Cap. 31. page 288. "Is a witness bound to declare the truth before a lawful judge? Noif his deposition will injure himself or his posterity; or if he be a priest; for a priest cannot be forced to testify before a secular judge."

10. Laymann, Lib. 4. Tract. 3. Cap. 1. page 73. "It is not sufficient for an oath that we use the formal words, if we have not the intention and will to swear, and do not sincerely invoke · God as a witness."

11. Tamburinus, Lib. 3. Cap. 4. Sect. 2. page 27. "If any man conceals another's property, for the support of himself and his family, when asked, he may say that he has concealed nothing. For example-a priest may equivocate before a secular judge, that he is no delinquent, by understanding that the judge is not a competent lawful authority to receive the testimony of ecclesiastics."

12. Emmanuel Sa, Aphor. page 41. "The rebellion of Roman priests is not treason, because they are not subject to the civil government."

"The

13. Bellarmin, Controvers. Lib. 5. Cap. 6. page 1090. spiritual power must rule the temporal by all sorts of means and expedients when necessary. Christians should not tolerate a heretic king."

14. Salmeron, Comment, Evan. Hist. Vol. 4. Pars. 3. Tract 4. page 411. "The pope hath supreme power over the whole earth, over all kings and governments, to command and enforce them to employ their power to promulge popery; which mandate of the pose they are bound to obey, and if they resist he must punish them as contumacious."

15. Sanctarel, Tract. de Hæres. Cap. 30. page 296. "The pope can depose negligent rulers, and deprive them of their au thority."

"The pope

16. Lessius, Lib. 2. Cap. 42. Dub. 12. page 632. can annul and cancel every possible obligation arising from an eath."

17. La Croix, Vol. 1. page 294. "A man condemned by the pope may be killed wherever he is found."

18. Emmanuel Sa, Aphor. page 178. "It is lawful to kill in defence of ourselves or another, or in defence of our property or honour. You may kill beforehand any person who may put you to death, not excepting the judge and witnesses, because it is selfdefence."

19. Henriquez, Sum. Theol. Moral, Vol. 1. Lib. 14. Cap. 10. page 869. "If an adulterous priest, even aware of his danger, having visited an adulteress, is assailed by her husband, kills the man in his own defence, it is not criminal."

20. Fagundez, Precept. Decalog. Vol. 1. Lib. 4. Cap. 2. page 501, 655; and Vol. 2. Lib. 8. Cap. 32. page 390. "Papist children may accuse their parents for heresy, although they know that their parents will be burnt for it--not only they may deny them nourishment, but they may justly kill them, if the parents would turn their children from the popish faith."--"If a priest at the altar is attacked by any one, he may leave the ceremony and defend himself; and although he may kill the assailant, he may immediately return to the altar, and finish the mass."-" If a judge decides contrary to law, the injured person may defend himself by killing the judge."

21. Airault, Cens, page 319. "If a person attempts to ruin my reputation by calumny, and I can avoid the injury only by secretly killing him, may I do it? Certainly. Although the facts are true; yet if the calumiator will not cease to publish them, you may fitly kill him, not publicly, but in secret, to avoid scandal.”

22. Amicus, Num. 131. "A priest may kill those who hinder him from taking possession of any ecclesiastical office."

23. Bauny, Cap. 7. page 77. "We may wish every evil for our neighbour without sin, when we are impelled by a good motive-thus, a mother may desire the death of her daughters, when, from deformity or poverty, she cannot marry them to her satisfaction."

24. Escobar, Theolog. Moral. Vol. 4. Lib. 32. Sec. 2. Prob. 5. page 274." It is lawful to kill an accuser whose testimony may jeopard your life and honour."

Escobar, page 278. "It is permitted to kill any person who is proscribed." Page 284. "It is lawful to kill those who injure our honour, or cover us with infamy before persons of distinction."

Escobar, Vol. 6. page 170. "Not only is it lawful to offer or accept a duel, but you may secretly kill a calumniator, if you have no other mode to avoid the danger, because it is not murder, but self-defence. You are obliged to refuse a duel, if you can secretly kill your enemy; because thereby you endanger not your own life, and you also hinder the commission of a new sin, in offering or accepting a duel."