the resolution of the penitent will be performed, nor even that he should judge it to be probable; but it suffices for him to think that the penitent at the time has the general intention, although he should fall back again in a very little while. And this is what is taught by all our writers."—(App., Note 236.)

Pascal here objects that, according to the opinion of Father Petau himself, true penitence is necessary for the reception of the sacrament. To which his

Jesuit instructor replies as follows:

"Father Petau speaks of the ancient Church. But that is now so out of season, to use the words of our Fathers, that the contrary, according to Father Bauni, is the only truth. There are authors who say that we ought to refuse absolution to those who often fall back into the same sins, and especially when, after having been many times absolved, there is no appearance of amendment; and others say No. But the only true opinion is, that we must not refuse them absolution; and even though they do not profit by all the advice which we have often given them, though they have not kept the promises which they have made to change their life, though they have not labored to purify themselves, it is no matter; and whatever others may say about it, the true opinion, and that which we should follow, is that, even in all such cases, they ought to be absolved. And again: We ought neither to refuse nor delay absolution to those who are in habitual sins against the laws of God, of nature, and of the Church, although we do not see in them any hope of amendment.”—(App., Note 237.)

Once more:

"Hear Father Bauni. We may absolve him who acknowledges that the hope of being absolved has induced him to sin with more facility than he would have done without this hope. And Father Caussin, defending this proposition, says, that if it was not true, the use of confession would be interdicted to the majority of mankind, and there would be no longer any remedy for sinners but a branch of a tree and a rope."—(App., Note 238.)

Another maxim of the Jesuits' system, which dispenses with contrition, is in perfect harmony with the rest, and, indeed, becomes essential to their consistency. Thus Pascal's instructor states this important part of their moral theology:

"Our Fathers Fagundez, Granados, and Escobar, in the practice of our Society, have decided that contrition is not nec essary even at the hour of death; because, say they, if attrition with the sacrament did not suffice at death, it would follow that attrition would not be sufficient with the sacrament." - (App., Note 239.)

"Contrition is so little necessary to the sacrament" (i. e., the Sacrament of Penitence), "that it would, on the contrary, be hurtful to it, because, in effacing our sins by itself, it would leave nothing for the sacrament to accomplish. This is what our Father Valentia, that celebrated Jesuit, says.... Contrition is by no means necessary to obtain the principal effect of the sacra ment, but, on the contrary, it is rather an obstacle to it." ~ (Appo, Note 240.)

I shall add but one extract more, in which they boldly assert that the love of God is not required for our salvation.

"Our Father Anthony Sirmond.... in his admirable book on the Defense of Virtue.... finally concludes, that we are not, in strictness, obliged to any thing more than to observe the other commandments, without any affection for God, and without giving our hearts to Him, provided that we do not hate Him. This is what he proves throughout his second treatise.... where he says these words: God, in commanding us to love Him, contents Himself with our obeying Him in His other commandments. If God had said, I will destroy you, whatever obedience you may render to me, unless your heart is also mine, would this motive, in your opinion, have been properly proportioned to the end which God should and could have had in view? It is, therefore, said that we shall love God in doing His will, as if we loved Him with affection; as if the motive of charity led us to obedience. If that be really the fact, it is still better; if not, we shall not fail, nevertheless, to obey in strictness the commandment of love, by having the works; so that (behold the goodness of God!) it is not so much commanded that we love, as that we do not hate Him."—(App., Note 241.)

"It is thus that our Fathers have discharged men from the painful obligation of loving God actually. And this doctrine is so advantageous, that our Fathers Annat, Pintereau, Le Moine, and even A. Sirmond himself, have defended it vigorously whenever it was attacked. You have only to observe this in their answers to the Moral Theology; and that of Father Pintereau will

enable you to judge of the value of this dispensation, by the price which he says that it has cost-the blood of Jesus Christ. It is the very perfection of this doctrine. You will there see that this dispensation from the difficult duty of loving God is the privilege which the law of the Gospel bestows above the law of the Jewish system."-(App., Note 242.)

Enough has now been shown of the maxims of the Confessional, as they were laid down by the great masters of the Jesuit Society, and doubtless faithfully carried into practice, from the middle of the sixteenth to the latter part of the seventeenth century. From these the reader may fairly infer what their system must have been on the prolific subject of the sins of licentiousness. And the light which they shed on the practical administration of priestly absolution, during their long reign of power, may be easily estimated, when we remember that they far excelled all the other Orders of the Church of Rome in zeal, in strenuous activity, in splendid success, in learning, in the extent of their privileges and immunities, and in the just reliance placed upon their extraordinary resources by the popes themselves. During a full century, at least, they were looked upon by the papal governments of Europe and by the Court of Rome as the most effective barrier against the progress of the Reformation. And had they not, through the special mercy of an overruling Providence, been induced to publish their demoralizing system, they might have gone on with its secret application to the end of the world, and no man, out of their own pale, would have been the wiser.

But have we any right to charge the Jesuits with being, in the main, less scrupulous than their fellows? Assuredly there is no evidence whatever to justify such an accusation. It is certain that in the severity of their training, in implicit obedience, and in their

readiness to make any personal sacrifice for the interests of the Papacy, they excelled all others. Their own morals were as pure, to all appearance, as those of any Order in the Roman communion. The indulgences which they granted to such a fatal extent, for the gratification of their brethren, were not often needed for their own. We have seen that they justified their scheme on the express ground of necessity and expediency. They used it to recommend their Church and themselves, with equal success, to all classes of society. They sought to govern the laity by these easy and corrupt maxims, because the Reformation had broken the power of the popedom, and the old system of excommunication, followed by fire, and sword, and torture, was practically exploded every where, except in the Inquisitions of Spain, Portugal, and Goa. No man has any authority for denying that their motives were precisely what they stated Nor did it need any extraordinary sagacity to see that kings and princes, nobility and gentry, soldiers and citizens, laborers and servants, must be flattered and deluded, since they could no longer be compelled; for otherwise the dominion of the pope would be lost, and all men would claim the Protestant liberty of taking their religion from the Bible, and insist on reducing the offices of priests and bishops to their apostolic and primitive limitations, and reform their creeds by the ancient standards, and turn the monks and nuns adrift; and thus the magnificent fabric of papal supremacy and sacerdotal despotism, which had been erected with such laborious and persevering policy during ages of darkness and superstition, would fall to the ground, and bury them in its ruins.

In all this I can perceive nothing peculiar to the

position of the Jesuits. Making a reasonable allowance for occasional exceptions, it seems manifest that the same views and motives were just as likely to operate on the whole Roman hierarchy. The same interests belonged to every member of the priesthood. The same dangers threatened them all alike. And it is impossible to assign any reason for the corrupt compliances of that pre-eminent Order with the depravity of their age, which would not be as valid in the judgment of the rest, and as likely to govern the Confessional in its practical operation.

Unfortunately for the Jesuits, however, many of their maxims were utterly subversive of civil government. The shocking allowance of false oaths, under the plea of mental reservation, was a mortal blow to the administration of justice. The atrocious permission of homicide, to prevent the loss of reputation or property, was directly hostile to the safety of every community. These principles could not be tolerated by the rulers of the State with any regard to the public welfare. And therefore the Jesuits, who had made themselves responsible by their avowal, fell under universal suspicion and obloquy. The Jansenists, I doubt not, were honest in their efforts to expose them. Of the sincerity of Pascal and some of his coadjutors, there can be no question. But if the reigning sovereigns and their ministers in the various papal countries had not taken the alarm, and expelled the Jesuits, the popes and cardinals of Rome would have given themselves little concern about the complaints of their other enemies. This is sufficiently manifest from the fact that while the Jansenists were promptly condemned by two papal bulls, the first of which was issued in A.D. 1653, and the second only three years afterward, on the score of certain