be taken secretly, nor is he obliged to restore it. . . . If you take that of which the owner made no use, you are not bound to restore it, if it would be of no further use to its owner. . . . If a thief had stolen small things from any one at different times, he is not obliged to make restitution till they amount altogether to a considerable sum, although some, the father adds, deny the duty of making restitution at all with probability."

The trade morality of the Jesuit doctrine is remarkably accommodating :

"If, for instance, (Father Tolet says,) a man cannot sell his wine at a fair price, either on account of the injustice of the judge or fraud in the purchasers, then he may diminish his measure, or mix a little water with it, and still sell it for pure wine of full measure; provided only that he does not tell a lie."

But if he should, it seems to be a matter of no importance :"For (the Father adds) that it is neither a dangerous nor a mortal sin, nor does it oblige him to make restitution."

Several of the Fathers are remarkably indulgent to the pilfering of domestic servants. Father Reginald instructs

us,

"That they are excused both from sin and restitution, if they take in equitable compensation; that is, when they are not furnished with such things, necessary for food and clothing, as are usual in other houses, and which ought to be provided for similar servants; only that they must be careful not to take more than fairly belongs to them.'

Father Fegundez is even more accommodating :

"If their masters have overworked them, then they may take something more, in consideration of the service they have discharged beyond their agreement."

So, too, teach Fathers Tamburin, Busembaum, and Lacroix. The two last authorize a servant to steal, if he has (as he himself determines?) been compelled to serve for less wages than he deserves. We leave it to a jury of English housekeepers to determine, whether the charge of authorizing theft has been proven or not proven, by this group of Jesuit doctors.

2. LYING. The doctrine of Casnedi is remarkable, even from a Jesuit. It places conscience, however depraved, in supreme judgment; it overrules the moral law and every express commandment: thus

"If through invincible error you believe lying or blasphemy to be commanded by God, blaspheme."

And again :

"Omit to do what your conscience tells you invincibly is forbidden;

omit the worship of God, if you invincibly believe it to be prohibited by God."

"There is an implied law existing in God (Lex. . . reflexa verè existens in Deo), which is this: Obey an invincibly erroneous dictate of conscience. As often as you believe invincibly that a lie is commanded, lie."

Thus, if the conscience be depraved, the lie is innocent: the worse the man, the less blamable his wickedness.

3. PERJURY.

"It is not a mortal sin to swear that you will not do that which it is better to do; nor if you swear a false oath as to words, but a true oath in reference to the meaning of the inquirer; as if, in the time of the plague, you should swear that you are not come from such a place, understanding that in which the plague prevailed as he supposes; or that you had not spoken to such a man, meaning upon the subject which your inquirer may suspect. (Emmanuel Sa.) It is not intrinsically wrong to use equivocation, even in making oath; whence it is not always perjury. (Francis Suarez.) A man who is urged to take a woman for his wife whom he is not compelled to marry, may swear that he will take her, by understanding within himself, if I am obliged, or, if she should afterwards please me.— (Thomas Sanchez.)”

4. IMPURITY. And that of the most horrible character; so that we may well believe that celebrated saying of Liguori, which we give on the authority of Dr. Butler, the famous Roman Catholic advocate, that more priests have been damned from hearing confessions than from anything else. We shall only refer to the works of George de Rhodes, Busembaum, and Liguori himself, though several others might be added.

5. EVERY PASSION AND EVERY CRIME. Those who believe the charges already made, and those which we have still to produce, will need no other proofs. It is enough, that, at the bidding of the Superior, the Jesuit must call evil good and good evil. He has neither will nor conscience of his own.

6. HOMICIDE, PARRICIDE, AND REGICIDE.

"It would be lawful for an ecclesiastic, or one of a religious order, to kill a calumniator who threatens to spread atrocious accusations against himself or his religion, when other means of defence are wanting.-Francis Amicus."

Airault takes the same ground; "only," he says,

"The calumniator should first be warned, that he desist from his slander; and if he will not, he should be killed, not openly, on account of the scandal, but secretly."

With regard to parricide, Stephen Fegundez says, that— "Christian and Catholic sons may accuse their fathers of the crime

of heresy, if they wish to turn them from the faith, although they may know that their parents will be burned with fire, and put to death for it. If the parents should become Protestants, and attempt to turn them from the Catholic faith, they may also justly kill them and be blameless."

Regicide is a favourite doctrine, and high treason with it. The reader may take his choice of the following authorities. Emmanuel Sa, who teaches that—

"The rebellion of an ecclesiastic against a king is not a crime of high treason, because he is not subject to the king."

Bellarmine,

"It is for the Pontiff to determine whether the King must be deposed or not."

With him agree Mariana, De Salas, Gabriel Vasquez, Cornelius & Lapide, Escobar, and many more. Mariana furnishes us with a few particulars which deserve to be known. After informing us that it is a glorious thing to put tyrants to death, he proceeds to inform us how it may be done. Poisoning seems to be the approved method, and he appears to be no novice in the use of it :

"It is well not to constrain the person who is to be killed to take of himself the poison which, inwardly received, would deprive him of life, but to cause it to be outwardly applied by another without his intervention; as, when there is so much strength in the poison, that if spread upon a seal or on the clothes, it would be sufficiently powerful to cause death."

7. The decrce of the Parliament of Paris charges the Jesuits with substituting SUPERSTITION for religion, favouring MAGIC, BLASPHEMY, IRRELIGION and IDOLATRY. These may seem general charges, and yet they are capable of particular proofs. Jesuitism at its first blow lays the conscience of its disciple prostrate. The only difference he knows between what is right and what is not, is, what is commanded by his superiors and what is not. Hence the necessity of a code regulating, not by general laws but special precepts, even the minutest transactions. On magic, for instance, Escobar writes thus:

"It is lawful.... to make use of the science acquired through the assistance of the devil, provided the preservation and use of that knowledge do not depend upon the devil: for the knowledge is good in itself, and the sin by which it was acquired is gone by."

On the question of blasphemy we forbear to make any quotations. The purest mind is not always proof against them. We refer, for the sake of those of our readers who may be compelled to investigate the principles of the Jesuits, to the extracts from Amicus, Bauny, and Casnedi. (Paroissien, p. 116, &c.)

Idolatry may be an act of the purest religion. Vasquez teaches that all inanimate and irrational things may be illegitimately worshipped,—

"Without regarding in any way the dignity of the thing created, to direct our thoughts to God alone, while we give to the creature the sign and mark of submission by a kiss or prostration, is neither vain nor superstitious, but an act of the purest religion."

If impiety could go further than this, we have it in Amadeus Quimenius, who teaches that an explicit belief in the Incarnation and the Trinity is not necessary to salvation; or Escobar, who teaches "that a man of a religious order commits no heinous sin, if he lay aside his religious habit for a short space, say one hour, although he should lay it aside not only for a sinful purpose, but for the vilest "the vilest purposes, which he enumerates, but which we cannot repeat. We conclude our extracts with a story from the Jesuit Gobat, as a specimen of his " Opera moralia." It is a sample of the instructions which he gives to young Jesuits at the confessional :—

"A merchant who had been given over by his physicians, desired that a Lutheran priest might be summoned to attend him. But his servants brought a Catholic. He had no sooner arrived, than he began to praise some of the excellencies of Luther (for in the very devil himself some natural good qualities are to be found). He secured the attention of the sick man, instructed him in the Catholic religion, heard his confession, administered the communion, and even to his latest breath exhorted him to acts of contrition.

"This merchant believed, indeed, that he was confessing himself to a Lutheran priest (for auricular confession, as Luther rightly though contemptuously calls it, still prevails in many towns among the Lutherans); yet, in fact, he was only a Lutheran MATERIALLY. Hence, the deception in regard to the person of the confessor did not vitiate the confession."

From these extracts, our readers may form a correct judgment as to the real character of the Society of Jesus, impiously so called. If an attempt be made to deny the authority of the writers we have quoted, those who make it are entangled in their own net. One of the fundamental principles of the Jesuits is, that there shall be no shade of division amongst them, in order that there neither be strife, nor confusion, nor anything which would lay them open to discovery. So their own historian tells us. And their Constitutions ordain three things: that no member introduce new opinions; that if any one of them should chance to entertain an opinion contrary to that which is commonly received, he shall renounce it, and adhere to the decision of the Society; and that in controverted questions, upon which two opinions are held, both of which are undetermined, he shall restrict himself to con

formity, that thus all may hold the same doctrine and the same language.

It was not without reason, then, that the Jesuits were expelled from every nation in Europe, within little more than two centuries. From 1555 to 1573, they had been expelled thirty-seven times from various States. From England they were driven in 1604. The Emancipation Act of 1829 provides, that if any Jesuit come into this realm, or be admitted a Jesuit while in England, he shall be guilty of a misdemeanour; and being lawfully convicted, shall be banished from the United Kingdom for the term of his natural life. The Act seems to assume that no Jesuit had yet reappeared in England. The fact was very different; the leprosy had broken out, the plague had begun. We close Mr. Paroissien's book with a grateful acknowledgment of the service he has rendered to the cause of the Reformation, and of civil and religious liberty. For if, after the disclosures he has made, we still persist in our indifference to the growth of Jesuitism, our guilt and folly are without excuse.

We turn to the second volume at the head of our paper,"The Poor Gentlemen of Liège : being the History of the Jesuits in England and Ireland for the last Sixty Years." It is only a fourth part of the whole work which is now before us; but if it meet with acceptance, it is proposed to publish the other parts, one in each quarter, and to complete the whole within the year. Mr. McGhee, who writes the preface and edits the work, and is, from his great acquaintance with popery, both ancient and modern, perhaps the fittest man in England for the task, anticipates the burst of honest indignation with which he thinks the volume will be received. Would that it may be so. But, whatever its reception, its disclosures are sufficient to provoke, not only indignation, but serious alarm. Were it otherwise, M. Cretineau Joly would afford us considerable entertainment. The imperturbed serenity with which he lays claim to every earthly and divine perfection, on behalf of himself and the society of which he is the historian, would be almost amusing, says Mr. McGhee, if it did not present another and a more serious aspect. We need not follow him through his rapid sketch of what the Jesuits once were, and how they continued to hold a fond grasp on England during the dynasty of the three Stuarts. The revolution of 1688 was made, he tells us, to the cry of "Death to the Jesuits!" Yet, when it had exhausted its fury, they found themselves more peaceably situated than ever, under the new Protestant dynasty. The Roman faith was still maintained in the bosom of certain families, by the fathers of the Company of Jesus; by them it had been still propagated for nearly three hundred years. They lived in safe retreats, from whence they only emerged to