parts of the globe, and as you go, mounting the rostrum, ask, “What sin is there in gluttony?" Then reply, as taught by your beloved Father Escobar, of happy memory, that "in itself it is at most only a venial sin, and that a man is at liberty to eat and drink even till he vomit, supposing it be attended with no material inconvenience in respect to his bodily health."* Declare also, on the authority of this same respectable author, that "if a person run into all this excess by premeditated design, and well knowing that sickness and vomiting will be the consequence, still he does not commit a mortal sin.”+

The Jesuits make drunkenness to serve as plenary indulgence. Escobar exempts from sin all the actions of the intoxicated person while insensible of what he doe even though they may prove injurious to others, and would consequently be sinful if knowingly committed. "We may," says he, "give as an instance the case of blasphemy, the using of infidel expressions, the abjuration of one's religion, or the commission f perjury." In short, it takes away all power

* Quodnam peccatum gula est? Ex genere suo veniale, etiamsi absque utilitate se quis cibo et potu usque ad vomitum ingurgitet, nisi ex ejusmodi vomitione gravia saluti incommoda experiantur.-Escob., tr. 2, ex. 2, c. 8, n. 56, p. 288.

† Mortale non est, imo quamvis advertenter id faciat ac evomat.Ibid.

Ebrietas excusat ab omni peccato in his quæ insana mente fiunt, injuriosa, ac proinde quæ sana quidem mente peccata essent. Item blasphemia, infidelitas, perjurium in ebrio.—Ibid., tr. 2, ex. 1, c. 12, n. 56, p. 285.

to sin while the intoxication continues, though acts of murder, fornication and adultery, incest, or other crimes repugnant to nature, should be actually committed; and this is my reason for calling it a plenary indulgence,

Gobat, the Jesuit, asserts "it is lawful for a person to drink till he has lost his reason, for the sake of preserving or recovering his health, or in order to avoid a good beating." ." Thus we see that to acquire a state of perfect innocence a man has only in the first place to confess with a good servile fear, then to drink heartily till he has lost his reason, whether for the preservation of his health, if it be already good, or to recover it, if he be sick; and afterwards to continue his carousals without intermission. Having proceeded thus far he is safe. He may now perpetrate every crime that can be imagined, and yet pass at once from a state of intoxication to the pure joys and happiness of heaven-such, at least, is Jesuit doctrine and morality!

ON THE MURDER OF KINGS.

As the Jesuits neither honoured God nor regarded man, they could not be supposed to be troubled with

*Gobat, in his Euvres Morales, tom. 3, tr. 5, chap. 18, sect. 1,

n. 9.

many scruples as to taking the life of a sovereign who interfered with their plans or who was opposed to their creed.

"I do not believe," says the Jesuit Father Mariana, “that a man, who to satisfy the views of the public should undertake to murder a king, would commit the least sin in the world."*

To reconcile princes to a doctrine so much calculated to excite their alarm, the Jesuits say, that recourse ought never to be had to such a measure ❝till the most grave and eminent authors have been consulted." And who are these authors?" the Jesuits."+ Thus these Jesuit fathers make themselves at once the confidants of princes and the arbiters of their death. They manage their consciences according to their own pleasure; and if they think proper to dispose of their lives under pretence that their conduct is not good, they deliver them over to popular fury.

We may here observe, that the Jesuit Father

* Qui votis publicis favens, eum perimere tentaverit, haud quaquam inique eum fecisse existimabo.-In his well-known work entitled, De Rege et Regis Institutione, a book, which, in the year 1610, was condemned by the Parliament of Paris to be burnt by the common hangman, in consequence of the execrable blasphemies it contained against Henry III., King of France. These are the terms employed in the sentence of the Parliament.

+ Principibus nihil periculi imminent, quando totius populi sensu pro tyrannis habentur, si populus sequatur doctorum et gravium virorum, quod Mariana exigit, consilium, Iique sint Jesuitæ.-This quotation is from Lessius.

Guignard was hung in La Place de Greve, for having, according to his own confession, "unhappily, wickedly, and against the truth, written, that the late king" (Henry the Third) "had been justly assassinated by James Clement, and that if the present king" (Henry the Fourth) "be not slain in battle, he ought to be put to death." That the Fathers Oldercorn and Garnet met the same fate in England, the one for expressing his approbation of the Gunpowder Plot, and the other for having known of that plot, without divulging it; and both for their pernicious sentiments respecting the authority and lives of sovereigns.

And has not the Order of Jesus openly approved of such doctrines, when we find that Father Jouvenci, so famous for his elegant Latin, in the history he has published of the Society, actually represented these three malefactors as three illustrious Christian martyrs, making heaven itself declare their innocence by numberless signs and miracles*?

To cause monarchs to tremble, and induce them to bow in all things to their will, the Jesuits have not only at different times showed them the sabre of the assassin, but awed them by the power of the Pope; and subjected them to his anathemas in

* See pages 8, 28, 29, 116, 184, 188, 190, and 191, of a book entitled, A Collection of Pieces relating to the History of the Society of Jesus: written by Father Joseph Jouvenci, Jesuit.

case of their becoming schismatics or heretics. "If the princes of the royal blood become heretics," says Vasquez, "then hath the kingdom a right to elect a new king, and all those princes to whom the succession would otherwise have belonged, may justly be deprived of the kingdom by the Pope; because the good of the faith," (i.e., the faith of the Jesuits,) "which it is of the utmost importance to preserve, requires this to be done. But if the kingdom itself," he adds, "be infected, the Pope, as sovereign judge in matters of the faith, should, in order to secure the welfare of that kingdom, select and nominate a catholic monarch; and, if it be necessary, put him into possession of the throne by force of arms; for the benefit of the faith and of religion, demand that the sovereign head of the church should give a king to a nation in such circumstances; and that if necessity require it, he should, in doing this, disregard even the constitutional rights of that nation.”*

Thus it appears, on the supposition of a king

* Quod si omnes de stirpe regia hæretici sint, tunc devolvitur ad regnum nova regis electio. Nam juste a pontifice omnes illi successores regno privari possunt; quia bonum fidei conservandæ, quod majoris momenti est, ita postulat. Quod si etiam regnum infectum esset, pontifex ut supremus judex in causa fidei, assignare posset catholicum regem pro bono totius regni, et ipsum vi armorum si opus esset introducere. Nam bonum fidei et religionis hoc exposcit, ut supremum ecclesiæ caput tali regno de rege provideat; et jura regni si opus fuerit, transgrediatur.-Vasquez, in his Disputations on the Summary of St. Thomas, tom. ii., disp. 169, ch. 4, page 123, num. 42, 43.