IMAGE EVALUATION TEST TARGET (MT-3) ^ ^ <# // '<" MP. . n^ i L^^^;--'^-^,vrOv(^;%'V''- LONDON, ONT. Thomas c.kkkv, ii,.oiv am, Jon Printer. "■ I- I'r, ^f n i t r It i ¥— ^ m3 :l 1- MFiCE OP n rr U.E. jimTTmn |:^2222aE5essss^=gS;:::> CALUMNIES -OF- PASCAL, PIETRO SARPI AND REV. B. F. AUSTIN TRIUMPHANTLY REFUTED. mi<' ■'A » <■> I WITH A. NEW SONQ a THE DEVIL'S THIRTEEN. '* ■ I W » By REV. W. FLANNERY. ■Tr'V-^^5^^5^^'^^ 27U^ "Tr»^ LONDON, ONT. Thomas Coffby, Book and Job Printer. ' \ 77"^ PREFACE During the agitation on the question of the Jesuits' Estate Act, one Rev. Mr. Cami)l)ell, of Montreal, delivered a very one- sided lecture in the Knox Church, St. Thomas. At the close of the lecture a resolution was drawn up by their Committee ; proposed by Rev. W. H. W. Boyle, and seconded by Rev. B. F. Austin, in which the [)oliticians were censured for having incorporated and endowed the Jesuits, who, the resolution stated, by their aknotvl- edged re<>jd,\\^.d proved themselves opposed to sound Christian morality and inimical to civil and religious liberty. The St. Thomas Journal defended the course of the politicians on the principle that Quebec, being an independent province, had acted within the •constitution in voting any sum it pleased to the Jesuits or any other body of citizens engaged in the cause of education. Rev. Mr. Austin, in his reply, stated that his resolution was carried unanimously at said meeting, and that the Jesuits, by their ack- nowledged record, were not deserving of any favor from the Can- adian Government. Hereupon Rev. Father Flannery entered the lists and maintained, in a letter to the Journal., that Rev. Mr. Austin's letter contained two errors; (ist) that the resolution was carried unanimously (this was denied and reference made by Father Flannery to a speech of Mr. David McLaws, Clerk of the Court, who opposed the resolution, on the principle of every province being free to legislate for itself) ; (2nd) that it was false and erroneous on the part of Rev. B. F. Austin to state that the Jesuits had a bad record, and that it was misleading on the part of Rev. B. F. Austin to state that the Jesuits had ever acknowledged them- selves guilty of any of the false charges brought against them. In reply, Rev. Mr. Austin wrote several very severe and calumnious letters against the Jesuit Fathers, to which Rev. Father Flannery replied. It will be perceived that th( '"-'Ise charges made by Rev. Mr. Austin against the Jesuits ar-^ the m«.ntical charges made by the whole fanatical brood ' libeh^' a on the great and holy men of the Jesuit Order. The re ;entlemen (?) who so wantonly and so audaciously pour out the \. s of their wrath upon the heads of the Jesuits, seem to be cursed with blind bigotry, and with a determin- I ation to remain ignorant of the plainest facts of history. Pascal^ who wrote his "Provincial Letters" in defamation of the Jesuit Order, was hired at a great price by the Jansenists to devote hi* wonderful talent, as a writer, to the task of calumniating the P'athers and the theologians of that Order. The rev. libellers will read no history that teaches the whole truth ; they seemingly don't want to know the whole truth ; the whole truth would kill them. Their flocks, if they heard the whole truth, would abandon them. So they keep historic lies, like gilded baits, dangling before the eyes of their dupes, so much the more to be pitied that there is no alternative left them — in order to find the truth — but to read some Catholic standard work, or apply to some Catholic priest for light and information. Rev. Father P'lannery's letters, which we publish in pamphlet form, contain all the answers necessary to meet the untruthful and violent assaults now made at every ministerial gathering, and by every bigot, lay or cleric, in Canada. As the attacks are made in all places, and by bigots, every day and hour, it is well that Catholics should be well informed and have their answers ready, with historic reference, to repel calumny and vindicate the truth. We have no doubt this pamphlet will obtain a wide circulation in our own diocese, where the rev. writer is so well known, and in every diocese of this province where the Jesuit question is still agitated and shall remain a stum.bling-block to the peace and pros- perity of the country, until truth is known to the great majority and lying and calumny for ever stamped out. Note i. — Rev. Mr. Austin is Principal of Alma College, a Young^ Ladies' Academy in St. Thomas. Note 2. — Pietro Sarpi. — The real name is Fra Paoli Sarpi, of the Order of Servites. BRIEF HISTORY OF THE ORDER OF JESUITS. The Jesuit Order was founded by St.. Ignatius of Loyola, at the Chapel of Our Lady of Montmartre, in Paris, France, in the year of our Lord 1534. Henry VIII. and Martin Luther were then both living, and were usins all the bigotted zeal to destroy Catholicity in England and Europe. The Jesuit Fathers were determined to oppose the refo^'mation by lead- ing holy lives, by writing books of piety and by preaching missions. They resolved to live in monasteries under severe discipline, and devote themselves to prayer and study. They took solemn vows of chastity, poverty, obedience and self- denial. They promised solemnly never to covet honors or accept ecclesiastical titles or dignities in the Church. They rise every morning at 4 a. m., and devote the first hour of the day to acts of adoration, prayer and meditation. With a crucifix in view they discipline their bodies with a lash or a scourge, thus imitating St. Paul, who says : **I chastise my body and bring it under subjection, lest while I preach to others I should become myself a castaway." The Order is composed of priests, who exercise the sacred ministry by preaching, offering up the holy sacrifice every morning and hearing confessions till a lat^ hour in every town or city in which they are established. Lay brothers are also attached to everv house. These lav brothers attend to all the manual labor of the institution. They attend to the garden, to the cooking, to the house keeping in general. No woman or female servant is ever allowed within the precints of a Jesuit monastery. The Jesuit Fathers number at present about ten thousand. They have colleges, or missionary houses, in all parts of the civilized and uncivilized w^orld. They have been the most .zealous, most self-sacrificing and most successful missionaries ■who ever preached Christ crucified to the heathen. St. 6 Francis Xavier converted two million in the kingdom of Japan; Father Nebre>^a established Christianity in South America as early as 155:); Father Andrew Oviedo preached the Gospel successfully in Central Africa at same period. In the great country which e\tends between Limepopo and the Zambesi rivers in South Eastern Africa, Fathers (ionsalvo Silviera and Andrew Fernandez and Acosta arrived in March, l.^iIO, and after hav ng converted many thousands were finally put to death by the ^lahommedans, zealous of their successes among the pagan colored races. In almost every portion of the globe the Jesuit Fathers have planted the cross of Jesus Christ and have watered it with their martyrs' blood. They came to Canada in 1()20, just after it. discovery by Jacques Cartier, and converted to Christianity the entire Huron nation and most of the other warlike tribes of the aborigines. Canada owes a debt of gratitude to the Jesuits which is felt and acknowledged by all, exco])t by a few Methodist preachers and some political disturbers of the peace. In 1773 Canada was ceded by France to Great Britain on conditions agreed to at the treaty of Paris, in virtue of which the French- Canadians should be left in full possessi')n of all their religious privileges and customs as Cathohcs ; and of ad churches, schools and other properties belonging to religious communi- ties of men or women. As the Jesuit Fathers had been con- " demned to exile and death in England under Queen Elizabeth, and as these laws of persecution had nci been repealed, the English authorities gave the Jesuits to understand that they would not be distutbed in their possession, but that they should not recruit their numbers. At the death of the last Jesuit the government would dispone of their estates. The last of the Jesuits then living died in 1800. Bat the English government did not dare turn over their property to General Amherst, who petitioned for them, nor to any other individual, for they could not appropriate those estates without violating, the law of nations. The Mercier Government, now in power in the Quebec Legislature, has settled the matter by agreeing with the head of the Church, Pope Leo XITL, to grant $400,- 000 to the Catholic colleges in Qiiehec Province and $00,000 to the Protestant Kchools, if we may call it such. The Jesuits get but $1(50,000, whereas they were deprived of estates valued at $2,000,000. These estates were given to them some by the kings of France, some by private donations, and some they obtained by their own industry. The Act by which these moneys were granted was passed unanimously in the Quebec Legislature in 188H, under the title of Jesuits' Estate Act. In the House of Commons, Ottawa, on 28th March, Col. O'Brien moved that the Jesuits' Estate Act be disallowed. The motion was defeated by a majority vote of 188 against 18. i ^ 4 i>l «' •^ Jl . LETTER I. The Acknowledged Record of the Jesuits." To the Editor of the Journal : Sir — Under the above lieidin'- lev. Mr. Austin attempts to prove what I told him, and, t oun;h your columns, the public, that he could not prove, viz : That the Jesuits ever acknowled ^ed themselves guilty of any of the horrible crimes imputed to them, or that they ever obtained from any govern- ment an opportunity to defend themselves and prove their innocence of the foul charges laid against them. From what Mr. Austin promised in his former letters, and from what your readers were made to expect, I fancied that it would be established ; that in some country or other, in some court or other, some one Jesuit Father, in good standing with his Order, had been accused of some heinous crime, and had been allowed the same chance of defending himself that is accorded by Biitish law to even the most degraded criminal. Instead of doing this, Mr. Austin makes an attack upon the •Canadian Government for having incorporated and endowed the Jesuit Society, and for not having incorporated the Orange Order. What has this to do with the question at issue ? Does it prove that the Jesuits have cried "gui'ty" to any charge levelled against them, which Mr. Austin undertook to establish ? "The politicians," he says, **have hoodwinked the Orangemen, but are unable to hoodwink the Jesuits." The Orangemen must feel highly complimented by Mr. Austin •when they are set down as inferior in sagacity tu the monks of the Jesuit Order. But 1 must leave the Orangemen to defend themselves. When Mr. Austi . concludes his sentence by declaring the Jesuits " the worst horde of rehgious or political Ishmaelites known in history," there is no reason why I or any other person should not say that the Methodist preachers are the worst, most hypocritical and most tyran- nical horde of mountebanks that ever disgraced historv. Calling names proves nothing. But, as Mr. Austin and I are both Irish and Home Kulers, we had better leave Billingsgate severely alone, and confine ourselves to the question at issue, viz.: Has any Jesuit in good standing with his Order ever ^ I' i ' 1 10 acknowledged himself guilty, or been proven guilty, of the crimes laid at the door of the Jesuit Order ? 1. The disputed record, for instance, the poisoning of Clement XIV., who suppressed them, Mr. Austin quotes the Encyclopedia Brittanic, a Protestant work, which declares that the Pope's physician denied the poisoning. Would this not be sufficient in any court of justice to clear the Jesuits, or anybody else, of having committed so foul a crime ? The record is disputed only by those who are anxious to fasten crime where it does not belong. The Revocation of the Edict of Nantes, by which sixty thousand Huguenots were ])anished from France in l(i85, was not the work of the Jesuits, as stated by Mr. Austin. At that time the Jesuits were not in favor at the court of Louis XIV. This monarch was then in conllict with the Holy See. He was, just after establishing the Gallican liberties, so much admired by Bishop Carman (as stated in his letter to the Globe) preparing the contest of the Franchises against Innocent XL It is well known that both the Jesuits and the Pope disapproved of the violence exercised against the Calvin- ists. It was this very censure which provoked the expression uttered by Talon, "The Pope effects to give France a disgust tor the very things that would be profitable to religion." The "Bevocation of the Edict of Nantes" was a measure altogether political, in which neither the Jesuits nor the Pope had any share. King Louis XIV. was at that time waging war against William of Orange in Holland, and finding that the Huguenots rejoiced at his reverses, his anger knew no bounds. "Here in our midst," he exclaimed, "we have another Hol- land. Let them be banished from our country." (Darras Histore Eccles, vol. iv., 875.) The Huguenots, by their dis- loyalty, brought all the trouble on themselves. It is an infamous calumny to say that William the Rilent was killed by the Jesuits. It would have been just as reason- able to say that he was slaughtered by the Methodists. His- tory mentions the name of the assassin — one Baltazar Gerard, who was executed for the crime, and who had no more connection with the Jesuits than Bev. Mr. Austin. Here it occurs to me that before allowing myself to be dragged into this controversy I should have bargained with Mr. Austin that for every lie I should convict him of he should pay a fine of five dollars to the Thomas WiUiams Home. It is a lie, also and a calumny to say that Henry III. was killed by the Jesuits. He was murdered by a fanatic named Jacques Clement, who had never any, nor the remotest connection 11 ■with the Jesuits, and I defy Mr. Austin to prove the contrary under the alternatives of being an ignorant historian or a falsifier of history. Henry IV., King of France, was stabbed to death by one Ravillac, who was never at a Jesuit college, never had the remotest transaction or connection with Jesuits in any way whatsoever. He was expelled from the Order of Feuillants as being a fool and a madman, and in a crazy fit struck down King Heniy IV., who was a convert from Calvinism and the most attached friend of the Jesuits. When this brave mon- arch re-established the Jesuits by an order signed at Eouen, September, 1603, the members of Parliament at Paris deputed their President, Achille de Harlay, to remonstrate with the king (for those corrupt Parliaments were always opposed to the Jesuits). His Majesty replied : " I am thankful for the care you have of my kingdom and person. I am astonished on what grounds you found your opinion of the ambition of men who refuse dignities and bishoprics when offered them, and make vows to God never to accept them. '* The University has opposed them for the reason that they are more successful in teaching, as is shown by the number of >jupils in their colleges. You accuse them of teaching in their schools the murder of kings. One circum- stance makes me believe this is not true. During thirty years that they have taught the youth of France, one hundred thousand scholars of all conditions have come from their colleges, and there can not be found one of this -reat number to affirm having heard such language, nor an} lijing akin to it, to give rise to those reproaches." It is most preposterous and most infamous, in the absence of any proof, to charge any body of men, especially religious and saintly men, with the crime of assassinating a monarch who, after his conver- sion from Protestantism, became so eloquent and so devoted a friend of the Jesuits. But "lie, iie, lie," was then the watchword of the fanatics, as it is to-day. *' Some of the lies will stick." Is that the motto of Mr. Austin ? Is that the moral, are those the ethics which he imparts to the tender plants confided to his care and supervision in Alma College ? Heaven help the country in which virtue, pure, immaculate and self-immolat- ing must be maligned and tortured into crime, while falsehood is allowed to predominate. Mr. Austin mentions plots against the life of Queen Eliza- beth. Can he mention one that is attributable to the Jesuits any more than to the Methodists of St. Thomas? If he does f ■ M It and proves it home against the Jesuits, I will ba at his service to give lectures on "Truth," in the Alma, for the next six months. Under Elizabeth the Jesuits were hunted down as if they were the moat infamous of mankind. The principle that the "end justifies the means" was adopted against them. Camden, the Protestant historian, tells us in his annals that Elizabeth's Government *' had recourse to fraud to discover the secrets of heart. Letters were fabricated purporting to come clandestinely from the Queen of Scotland and the ban- ished Catholics. These were introduced into the houses of Papists in order that they might be found and used against thorn. (Spies were to be found in every direction for the pur- pose of reporting what might be said, and no matter who the informer he was admitted as a witness." ' I shall stop here, so as not to harrow the minds of your readers with the details of the horrible cruelties inflicted upon the innocent fathers, for no other crime than saying Mass and carrying the consolations of our holy religion to the dying as to the living. Mr. Austin has stated that the Jesuits were banished from several countries, but he does not dare to go into details, nor has the Mail or any other calumniator of the Jesuit Order dared to tell the public, their dupes, for what reasons the saintly and heroic fathers exposed themselves, like St. John the Baptist, to exile and death a thousand times over rather than cease to denounce evil wherever found, in college or court, in hamlet or palace. As to their suppression by Po2)e Clement XIV., many reasons existed, too long to enumerate in a newspaper article ; suffice it to say, the corrupt effete Bourbon monarch s of France, Spain and Portugal aUowed themselves to be misled by lewd women like Madame Pompa- dour and her Jezebel of a sister, La Grande Lucliesse de Granmount, who intrigued with etill more corrupt ministers cf state to suppress the Jesuits, as Herodias and her dancing daughter suppressed John the Baptist. The ambassadors of those powers had been terrifying the Pope with rumors of secession from the Church if he did not suppress the Jfsuit Order. Yiebiing at last, he thought it best for the peace of the Church to throw them overboard as Jonas was thrown, but Jonas was restored, and so were the Jesuits in 1814 by Pope Pius VI r. The Jesuits planted the cross on Canadian soil, which they crimsoned with their blood in testimony of the faith before John Wesley was born. Bishop Carman, in the Globe of April 24th, denounced them as worse than the heathen Chinese, andKev. Austin and his Alma and the whole I: ;li ''■ 13 fanatical brood shall be forgotten when the Jesuit Fathers will be preaching the pure Gospel to our descendants and teaching future generations in Ontario how always to discern truth from error and virtue from hypocrisy. The Parliament of Paris, which is cited against the Jesuits, was composed for the most part of Jansenists and Voltairians, who, with the Pompadours, the Courtesans and the Huguenots, were always the declared enemies of the Jesuits. The evidence adduced by Mr. Austin of Pietro Sarpi is most mischievous as it is the most misleading of all the infamous calumnies so far retailed by this Rev. Libeller. Pietro Sarpi is set down as a Roman Catholic. Mr. Austin might just as well have quoted Martin Luther or John Calvin as Roman Catholics. The works of Sarpi were condemned as advocating an odious system of duplicity and oppression. He preached rebellion against the authority of Pope Paul V., and was denounced in Rome as a Schismatic and Protestant. Yet he is quoted by Mr. Austin as a Roman Catholic author, upon the strength of which misrepresentation and argument is built up against the fair fame of the Jesuits, because they were opposed to Sarpi, as all true Catholics should have been. I will now close with the determination of losing no more time in the disagreeable occupation of reputing Mr. Austin's calumnies. It is much easier, and requires less time to throw- dirt at a beautiful mansion than to pick off the mud after- wards. I am going to be absent all next week, and when I return, if Mr. Austin agrees to pay $5 to the Home for every historic lie he tells I will do the same, and fight it out on that line if it takes all summer. I am yours, etc., W. Flannery. St. Thomas, April 27, 1889. LETTER II. To the Editor of the Journal: Sir — I find that during my absence from home last week Rev. Mr. Austin again returned to the charges which I had so completely refuted in ray last letter. He once more puts forward what he styles the disputed lecord, viz., five assas- sinations by the Jesuits, backed up by the revocation of the Edict of Nantes and several other crimes. He quotes, espec- •y I \ i !• I' : 14 ially, the poisoning of Pope Clement XIV., with all the proofs at his disposal, but says : " But I undertook to prove none of those ; let us pass them over," and he blames me for not letting them pass. Was there ever such arrant hypocrisy as this mode of procedure? He gives all the proofs h can pos- sibly rake up to fasten on the Jesuits the crime cf having poisoned the Pope, and then coolly tells us he does not un- dertake to prove anything of the kind, and that I should let it pass. But why does he undertake to prove it? Why does he mention it, and repeat it, if he does not b lieve it ? Why did he assert so audaciously in his former letter all the other charges of assassina ion of kings against the Jesuits if he did not believe them guilty of such horrible crimes ? There is no other solution of the difficulty than the belief that Mr. Austin wanted to fasten all those crimes on the Jesuits, and to leave the impression on his readers that the Fathers were really guilty of every one oi them. Mr. Austin calls for hon- esty and fair play. Where is the honesty or the justice or the Christianity in such wholesale calumny? And in the face of all this hypocrisy he wants me to let it pass. Why should I, the defender of the fair fame of the much-maligned Fathers, allow such a " da.k and damning" impression to re- main on the minds of the public, when, by a few quotations from history, 1 can clear them of the infamous imputation ? I am accused of quoting manufactured history. When a writer cites day and date and names and facts he does not manufacture history. If I manufactured facts and names, why did not Mr. Austin attemj^t by a single quotatation to disprove my assertions ? He could not do it, and I defy him to do it ; and, furthermore, I charge him now as being an ignorant historian or a wilful and malicious forger of history. Mr. Austin evidently takes great delight in trotting out once more Pietro Sarpi as a Catholic author, wl >h I denie 1. His reasons are "that he was the friend of three successive Popes," which he does not attemj^t to prove. Why does not Mr. Austin tell the whole truth, and say that he was a rene- gade, that he preached rebellion against Pope Paul V., and was denounced in Rome as a heretic ? Martin Luther was a friend of the Pope's before his fall from grace. Henry VHI. was also a friend of the Pope, who conferred on him the title of " defender of the Faith." But all must acknowledge how great a fool a man would make of himself were he to quote Martin Luther and Henry VHL as Catholic authors, after their prevarications, their crimes and their apostacy. It makes little difiference, however, whether Pietro Sarpi was a Roman Catholic or an apostate ; his very words, as quoted 15 by Mr. Austin, prove him to be an arrant scoundrel and a vile calumniator. For instance, Mr. Austin quotes from him, saying that *' The Jesuits are a public plague, the plague of the world. . . from the Jesuit colleges there is never sent forth a son obedient to his father, devoted to his country, loyal to his prince." Any Christian minister, with a spark of human feeling in his soul, would treat with contempt such atrocious charges, unaccompanied by one word of proof against any body of teachers, not to say of i eligious men. Were I, or any one else, to make similar charges against Alma College, were I to say that no young lady ever left that college without — well, without having learned to chew gum and smoke cigarettes, how would Mr. Austin feel about it ? And does he fancy the Jesuits are void of feeling, that they cannot feel hurt and wounded by such vile, calumnious and deep-cutting charges, heaped right and left upon them with devilish malice and Satanic hate ? Has Mr. Austin any fear of God's judgments, pronounced against those who are guilty of detraction and calumny ? Quoting detractors is endorsing detraction. A preacher of the Gospel should remember the words of Holy Writ : "My Son . . . have nothing to do with detractors, for their destruction shall rise suddenly, and who knoweth the ruin of l)oth ?" (Prov. xxiv, '21.) Surely Mr. Austin's eyes must have fallen sometime upon the text, *' Six things there are which the Lord hatetli, and the seventh, His soul detesteth. Haughty eyes, a lying to'^gue, . . . a deceitful witness that utteretli lies, and him liat soweth discord among brethren" (Prov. vi., IG); and agam, in the same holy book (xix, 5) : "A false witness shall not be un- punished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape." To show to a demonstration how false are the charges of Pietro Sarpi, endorsed by Mr. Austin, viz., that "from the Jesuit colleges there never is sent forth a son obedient to his father, devoted to his country, loyal to his prince," it may ButHce to state that most of our prominent men in Quebec and the lower provinces received their education at the Jesuit College in Montreal. And will Mr. Austin dare to maintain that not one of those is obedient to his father, devoted to his country or loyal to his prince ? Is not falsehood stamped on the very face of the indictment ? Again, Georgetown Uni- versity in Washington was founded in February, 1789, by the Jesuit Father Carroll, brother o! Carroll of Carroiton. Its inauguration was honored by the presence of George Wash- ington. Its centennial celebration was graced last February by the presence of Cardinal Gibbons, who entered the hall of reception leaning on the arm of President Cleveland. The r ■ { \i ''>■, »l i M -i 16 Provincial Jesuit father came in leaning on the arm of Secre- tary Bayard. Several other eminent senators and statesmen appeared on the platform in the presence of 5,000 citizens, among whom was seen the elite of Washington and of other cities. President Cleveland delivered an eloquent address of congratulation, remar Ning that this great and far-famed seat of learning had educated great numbers of the best and mOBt loyal citizens of the great Bepnblic. Is not the history of this college a flat though eloquent contradiction of Pietro Sarpi's arraignment endorsed by Mr. Austin and set before the public, not as a disputed, but as an acknowledged, record, viz., that the Jesuit colleges never sent forth a son obe lient lo his father, devoted to hib country, or loyal to his prince ? The Jesuit colleges of Fordham, New York; Santa Clara, Cal.; Worcester, Mass.; Loyola, Balti- more, and several others are every year sending out loyal sons and devoted patriots adorned with learning and peity to falsify the charges of Sarpi and to make utterly void and founda- tionless what Mr. Austin calls, in his own courteous, minis- terial and polite way, " The dark and damning record.' Among the acknowledged records Mr. Austin quotes the Parliaments of Paris. These Parliaments always took sides with Jansenists and infidels against the Pope and the Jesuits, as they do to this day, by banishing the name of God from the text books in the schools and colleges under their super- vision. He has great admiration for those Parliaments which beheaded King Louis XVI, and introduced into France all the horrors of the great revolution and the Reign of Terror, when every man and woman that professed Christianity was declared guilty of high treason, and condemned to death on the public scaffold. These are the parliaments which Mr. Austin takes to his bosom, while condemning what he styles the "lofty patriotism of our politicians," for having allowed the people of Quebec to grant a sum of money to the Jesuits and others for the sacred purchases of religious education. Does the Principal of Alma College understand the meaning of the word Infallibil ty ? It seems not. I must instruct him, then, or, if he be too obtuse or unwilling to learn, I will inform the public that Papal Infallibility does not mean Papal Impeccability. In his private capacity the Pope is just as liable to err as any other man. In his disapproval of lines of policy or in condemnation of individual communities, he may have been misinformed and misled by calumnies, and thus have given errone' s decisions which either he or his BuccesBors may have to xeverse afterwards. It is only when 17 speaking ex-cathedral in the name of Jesus Christ on dogmas of faith and morals to the Catholic world, that his decisions p-re accepted as infallible, from which there is no appeal, because he is the supreme judge, and his teachings are founded on Scripture, on the writings of the fathers and the universal tradition of the Church. None of those conditions are found in the Brief '' Ihfiiinus ac liedemptor Nostor'^ for the suppression of the Jesuit Order. Instead of founding his condemnation on Scripture or the writings of the Fathers, he makes up his mind to suppress them on the strength of "complaint, " which may have been one-sided — of accusations of " heathenish practices, " from which the Jesuits did not get a chance to exculpate themselves in any court or tril)unal, and from " Maxims cl triniental to sound morals, " which one word of explanation coald have set right. Whether the com- plaints came from princes or from bishops, makes little diU'er- ence (weak bishops and immoral princes existed in those days), as long as the jiersecuted Fathers got no fair trial. If Pope Clement yielded to the lear of losing France, Spain and Portugal, as was threatened, and thus suppressed the Jesuits, he regretted it to his last hour ; in fact, some writers main- tain that the grief of it broke his heart. Is Mr. Austin hor- rified that a Pope should display weakness? It speaks volumes for Mr. Austin's good opinion of Popes and l)ishops. But Peter, it. a moment of weakness, denied Christ, even with an oath. Pie, however, repented immediately, the Clospel says, **and going forth he wept bitterly."' The words of the Brief of Suppression, which I have re;id in Darras and other Church histories, is not exactly couched in the words used by Mr. Austin. Here is the version, and the true one: "In- spired, ! s we humbly trust, by the Divine Spirit," said the Pope, " urged by the duty of restoring unanimity to the Church, convinced that the Society of Jesus can no longer render those services for which it was instituted, and moved by other reasons of prudence and state policy, which we hold locked in our own breast, we abolish and annul (not annihil- ate, as Mr. aistin says) the Society of Jesus, its functions, houses and institutions." This version is found also in " lianke," a Protestant historian, and differs altogether from the " damning and annihilating " of Alma's little Principal. " The Pope," says the historian, "was like a master, who, to save his ship, sacrifices his most precious goods." This occurred on the 21st July, 1773. Pope Clement died one year and two months afterwards, on the 22nd September, 1774, miraculously assisted in his last moments by St. Alphonus Liguori. Strange to say, it tells how God always i I t 18 provides for His own. On being suppressed in Catholic countries, the Jesuits were invited to open colle^'es in Protes- tant and schismatical countries. Frederick tlie (Ireat, the Protestant king of Prussia, and Catherine I., Empress of iUissia, had written to Pope Pius VI., immediate successor of Clement, requesting His Holiness to grant permission to the Jesuit Fathers to direct the colleges in their kingdoms, which was readily . ranted. Then ensued the terrible French Bevolution, when Pope Pius VI. was made prisoner by the French infidels, and died at Valence. Pope Pius VII. restored the Jesuits to all their immunities and privileges, as soon as j)eace was made and trancpiility prevailed in Europe. I hear that Mr. Austin is about to deliver a lecture on the immoral teachings of the Jesuits. I hope, in view of saving immortal souls, he will keep in mind the words of Holy Writ: ^'A thief is better than a man that is always lying, but both of them shall inherit destruction. (Ecclus. xxi, 27.) Yours truly, W. Flannery, p. p. St. Thomas, May 7, 1889. LETTER III. To the Editor of the Journal: Sir — Mr. Austin comes out hot-foot with another letter, before I have time to answer his last calumnious effusion. This time it is all about the immoral teachings of the Jesuits, to prove which he quotes passages from Pascal, the sworn enemy of the Jesuits, who wrote his " Provincial Letters " against them o\ev two hundred years ago. This Pascal was the tool of the Arnaulds and the Port Royalists, whose doc- trines were condemned by the Church. And Pascal's work, quoted so triumphantly by Mr. Austin, was written at their instigation. Such confusion and horror did these letters pro- duce in some parts of France* that in the Council of State and Parliament of Aix they were condemned to be burned by the hand of the public executioner in the year 1657. It is from this Pascal that Mr. Austin quotes some decisions arrived at by some obscure writers in Spain, whose books are out of lu print for the last hundred years, and nol)ody would know anything whatever about them if tlie i)assage8 cited l)y Pascal were not preserved most religiously by fanatics for the pur- pose of making their hearers believe that those are the teach- ings of the Catholic Church and the Jesuits, whereas Catho- lics never heard of such books. Thev were written in Latin and translated into b'rench by Pascal, who could translate them any way he liked for all Mr. Austin knows. If Pascal were a conscientious author, he would have lelt Escobar, Bauny and the other Liliputians to strike with more telling effect such authors as IJourdalouo, Suarez, Bellarmine, Poisse- vin, Canisius, Petau and fcolet, who were all Jesuit Fathers, and whose works on philosophic and theological questions would shed lustre upon any society or any nation. Such writers are the glory of the country that gave them l)irth. Pascal pretended not to know of their existence, and attacked the less accurate among the many eloquent and more exact masters in theology produced by the Order of Jesuits. But Pascal and all his Jansenist compeers have all disappeared out of sight, the Jesuits still live and liourisb and teach and send brilliant men out into the world of science and letters from their magnificent colleges, nowhere so flourishing as in free England, Canada and the United States. The puny efforts of Mr. Austin to defame them must be held in utter contempt by the more intelligent of your readers, who estimate at its just value every effort to discredit the politicians chosen by the people and to raise up a third party, of which JDr. Sutherland and Mr. Austin would be the primo buffos, at a good round salary, while Mowat would be gone. Mr. Austin untruthfully says: "As it is a well-known principle of the Jesuits that none of the Order should print any theological works without the sanction of their superiors the Order stands justl condeamed for the teaching of its doctors." The Jesuit Fauiers who write on theological ques- tions are allowed, on points of doubt, to maintam their own opinion. Suarez differs fi;om Bellarmine in many of his decisions ; so does Canisius from Poissevin, and yet they are all Jesuits. Works of Catholic theology on moral questions are like works on the knowledge and practice of law, and doc- tors differ. If such latitude were not allowed there would be 10 freedom to discuss knotty points or put forward ancf main- tain an opinion. One Jesuit Father iy therefore not respon- sible for the opinions of another, especially when that other lived and wrote and taught over two hundred years ago in Southern France or Spain, where customs and manners are different. If Mr. Austin cannot understand this, he must be aw 4 li '■i 20 below the ordinary Btandard of intelligent preachers, and if he does not comprehend it, why does he give people room to doubt either his veracity or his sanity. Would it not be ridiculous for me to assert that because Bishop Colenso teaches that there is no truth in the live books of Moses, therefore all Protestants are unbelievers. Would it not be very ungracious in me to hold all Protestants or any Protestant responsible for the teaching of JJishop Dopping, " that no faith should be held with Papists." Theodore Beza, a Huguenot head preacher in the days of Luther, taught Jac(pies Poltrot that it was no sin for him to shoot down the Duke of Guise, the head of the Catholic party, and that he would be rewarded for his crime, both in this world and the next. And did not our famous Dr. Wild declare in his pulpit last February, that any man might shoot a Jesuit Father at sight, and that according to English law he could not sutler for it? 1 would be very sorry indeed to imitate Mr. Austin and hold Protestants responsible for those atro- cious principles. And !Mr. Austin's arraignment of the Jesuit Fathers has no better, more Christian or surer fc. undation. As Mr. Austin has not even attempted to prove what he undertook to estal)lish, viz : that any one Jesuit, either in Europe or America, was at any time brought before any court of justice to answer for any, even the most venial, sin or punishable demeanor, it is most outrageous that he should style them " Moral Lepers," " Iloriles of Ishmaelities." Could the Methodist body show the same unvarying, unblem- ished record'? As some great orator said: "I pause for a reply." To show how absurd is Sarpi's calumny and ^fr. Austin's endorsation of the same, 1 will mention just a few names of men prominent in the Order in this Dominion. The people of Guelph have reason to respect and admire Father Dough- erty, S. J., who has erected at a cost of $L50,000 a magnifi- cent church in their city. He is a native of Prince Edward Island, and spent fifteen years in philosophical and theological studies in Stonyburst College, England. Lately a prominent Orangeman in Guelph was declaiiuing against the Jesuits. A^ bye-stander asked him if he had ever seen a Jesuit. '' No," said the other, '* never in my life." " Did you ever see Father Dougherty ?" *' What— is 'he a Jesuit ?" " Certainly," was the reply ; **and the other priests on the hill are all Jesuits. ' *' Well," said the Orangeman, " I never knew that before. I have been dealing with those priests for the last tw^enty years and I declare to God I ne^er met honester or better men in my life." 21 Kev. Father Jones, S. J., St. Mary's College, Montreal, is connected by blood with the aristocratic Jones and Strachans, of Toronto, where he was born. His father was a U. E. Loyalist. Rev. Father Drumiuond, late of Montreal, now teaching in a University College in Winnipeg, is son of Judge Drummond, of Montreal, and was bom in Quebec city. The present Judge Drummond, his father, was for a long time a member of the Cabinet in the (.^artier- McDonald Government. Rev. Father Kenny, son of Hon. Sir Edward Kenny, was born in Halifax, studied law, became a leading barrister in Nova Scotia, and then retired from public life to embrace all the ascetic ^igors of a monastic institution. He is now the lead- ing pulpit orator of Montreal. In the United States I might mention the name of the Rev. Father Sherman, who about three years ago joined the Order of Jesuits with the reluctant but final consent of his father. General Sherman, who broke the back of the American rebellion and saved the American Union. These are some of th ^len reviled and slandered as " moral lepers " so wantonly \. h such diabolical pertinacity by Pietro Sarpi and his grand coadjuor. Rev. B. F Austin, I think, Mr. Editor, this contest has now proceeded its full length, and for my part I do not propose to continue the discussion any longer. I could say, and have often felt tempted to say, more by way of reprisal, but I feared to wound the susceptibilities of my many Protestant friends in this city and vicinity. For some of theoi, even Methodists, I entertain feelings both of esteem and affection, and would make any possible sacrilice or f o any distance to render them a service, but I could not see my flock insulted, and the noblest and greatest characters in our Church most grossly and unwarrantably calumniat-d, and, knowing their inno- cence, not take up my pen in defence of men who are "the honor of our country, the glory of Jerusalem, and the joy of all Israel," (Judith, xx., lO.) Thanking you, ^Ir. Editor, for the use of your columns and your personal uHjanity and kindness throughout, 1 am, yours sincerely, W. Flannery. St. Thomas, May 7, 1889. rr 22 % \ LETIER IV. To the Editor of the Journal: Sir — When at your suggestion, and according to the expressed wish of some of my Protestant friendu in this city, I declared this controversy closed in my last It-tter, I had no idea that Mr. Austin would prolong the combat by opening up new questions and re-opening new sores. The defendant has alwa,ys a right to be heard last, especially when tlie plaintiff has made unjust and malicious charges that should not be left unanswered. I shall be very brief, however, and as the plaintiff has quoted the organ of the Third Party, the Toronto Mail, I hope to be allowed space for a quotation from a good Protestant paper — the New York Tribune. Mr. Austin's arraignment ot the Jesuits, as to their acknowledged record, has been whittled down to a few garbled quotations from Escobar, a Sj^anish author, whose works on casuistry appeared in print about fifty years previous to the Battle of the Eoyne. They are out of print now for over one hundred years, and only a few extracts remain. These extracts were taken by Pascal, and garbled and distorted in such a manner as to make the author appear odious and opposed to good morals. And this is all Mr. Austin has to rely on for his attacks on the moral teaching of the Jasuit Fathers. I suppose there ia no use in proving how totally unreliable is Pascal in his attacks on the Jesuits. Mr. Austin will still hug to his bosom Pascal, and Pietro Sarpi, and Pompadour, and the inlidel parliaments of Paris, or Hatan himself, if only arrayed, as his Satanic majesty is always arrayed, against the Jesuits. De Ravignan, an able and con- scientious French autl: r, says: "The answers to Pascal's Provincial Letters have proved that those letters contain nine hundred alterations, or falsifications of passages." Voltaire (Siec le de Louis XIV.) says: "Pascal attempted to prove that the Jesuits had a design to corru})t morality, a design which no society ever had, or could have, but the point was not to be right, but to be amusing at their expense." Voltaire was no friend of the Jesuits, his cry was "Ecrascz les Jesuitcs et Vet/Use s'en ira rite'' — *' Crush out the Jesuits, and the Church shall soon follow." But he was a critical historian, and an able rhetorican. Chateaubriand, the great upholder •"Sv, J 23 of Christian faith and morals in a corrupt age, said : "Pascal? after all is only a calumniator ; he has bequeathed to us aft, immortal lie." To this liar and calumniator is Mr. Austin indebted for all his knowledge of the morality of the teachings of Jesuit Fathers, who lived in the South of France and Spain in the days of Elizabeth, Mary and James I. Mr. Austin cannot for the life of him, innocent man. Bee how the manners, customs and laws can be different now, here in Canada, from what was the accepted rule in those days, either in England or France. But tempora matantury the times change, and so do laws and customs. Even with these changes, and notwithstanding the alterations in the passages, sca^rcely one case has been quoted from Escobar which is not open to dispute, and w^iich, in the hands of an able lawyer, would not tind favor in the eyes of a competent judge. For instance : Usury is condemned by Escobar as a great sin. But supposing I have $500 invested in the bronze or any other manufactory, which brings me twenty per cent- profit, and Mr. Austin comes to me for a loan of $500, 1 tell him my circumstaiices, and he says, '* Oh, that's all right ; I am going to make thirty per cent, on a purchase of real estate; you must get twenty per cent." Why should I lose fourteen per cent, to accommodate Mr. Austin? This is what Mr. Austin styles usury, and similar cases he calls usury, lying perjury, but every case quoted by Pascal is altered and distorted in such a manner as to change the wdiole nature of the suiject matter in contention. As Mr. Austin does not tell the name of the treatise in Gury, which ho, or the man who is writing fur him, criticises, I cannot say exactly whether he is making alterations or not. Gm-y's Moral The- ology is written in Latin, and should be given in the original, or the chapter and page should be indicated. But Mr. Austin. does nothing of this kmd. He makes Gary say what he likes, or rather what the man likes who hsis found out those cases, as mare's nests, for the delectation of the enemies of the Jesuit Fathers. Even the cases cited so triumphantly against Gury are open to judicial investigation. The public should understand here it is a question of the internal court, or what is termed in foro conscicntiic. For instance, one of those cases given by Mr. Austin, if John, who is clerk in a store, bought a suit of ciothes from his employer and paid for them, but got no receipt; if he is sued before the court and condemned to pay a second time ; if afterwards he cjmes to me in confession and tells me that, smarting under the injus- tice, he privately abstracted enough to indemnify himself, am if i m 24 I obliged to tell that man that he is guilty of theft, and that he must make restitution of what he has abstracted ? Gurj says "no," and I defy Mr. Austin to say in his conscience " yes!" It is very easy, however, to garblo cases of this kind, to twist the meaning of one or two words in Latin, and then cry out, oh horror ! Gury, a Jesuit, teactes robbery, mur- der, perjury, and every other crime from pitch and toss to manslaughter. Therefore the record is bad, and therefore the Jesuit Fathers, who were the first white men in Canada West, who first planted the cross on every promotory of our great lakes, who, in spreading the Gospel of Christ, crimsoned Canada's soil with their martyrs' blood ; therefore these holy Fathers, who "shine like stars in the Heavens," are no better in Mr. Austin's eyes than "immoral lepers," " hordes of Ishmael- ites," " a thousand degrees worse than the heathen Chinese," as declared ex-cathedra by Bishop Carman a few weeks ago in the columns of the Toronto Globe. Further on, Mr. Austin says : *' The moral theology of the Society of Jesus is shockingly bad, from a Christian standpint, to-day." "The whole basis of the society is immoral. The conduct of the society, springing as it does from wrong principles, cannot be other than immoral," etc., etc. It is really astonishing how men guilty of such outrageous attacks, such insulting inuen- does, and withal such obtrusive vulgarity, can have the cheek to lecture others on " delicacy and refinement." Tliose choice epithets and beautiful comparisons with thieves, lepers and murderers, of men distinguished for learning and piety, entitle Mr. Austin and his bishop to exceptional honors as masters in the art of repelling injustice with a " calm, un- ruffled and philosophic spirit." A chief head of accusation and condemnation of the Jesuits, among the controversialists, is their l)lind obedience to rule and to the head of the Order. Mr. Austin has several times dragged this grievance into his letters, saying untruly that Loyola taught that one's conscience and intelligence should be sacrificed to the superior. He admits, however, it is the band which binds the Order together. Most certainly it 18. How could any society exist without obedience to rule '? How could a railway company exist ? How could an army exist ? Implicit, or if you will, blind obedience, is necessary for the existence of any organized body. Hence the members of every rehgious order bind themselves by a vow of obedi- ence, and hence they live and flourish. What would become of an army or of a railroad if the strictest obedience were not enforced ? It is want of obedi- 25 ence and pride of intellect that causes Protestantism to be broke 1 up into a thousand and one jarring denominations. The Jesuits are united because obedient, and consequently powerful, and if the solid Catholic vote exists, it is because of the people's obedience to the laws of God and of His Church. I might venture to put a case of casuistry and ask Mr. Austin how he would decide it in foro conscientice ? Let us suppose two young ladies escaping from a ladies' college some bright morning, and, falling out of the window, to take the earliest train for the west ; but the young men who were to meet them did not get there in time. Would the Principal of the college be justified in forging the names of the young gallants to a telegram in order to arrest the flight of the damsels ? If Mr. Austin came to confession to me on that score I would absolve him, l)ut warn him to be more careful in future, and to act like Loyola in enforcing strict, and, if necessary, blind obedience to rule and discipline. If he were arraigned before Judge Hughes, however, he might not get off quite so easily. Now, all the cases quoted by Escobar and Gury are of a similar nature, and are considered tried, not before judicial tribunals, but, in foro consc entiae. Mr. Austin asks me to "find some work of standard au- thority among the Protestants that will justify crimes ap- proved of by Jesuit teachers," and says "this he cannot do." It is true, we Catholics have enough on our hands to study our own authors without searching among Protestant writers for something to attack them about. Our Church rests on more solid foundations than lies or cahimnies. Nor do we ever have recourse to falsification of Protestant tenets in order to prop up a tottering system. All I know about Methodist etbics or laws on morality is what I hear occasion- ally, viz. : " That a strict temi)erance man need practice no other virtue ; that dancing is forbidden, but that osculatory games are a mark and a proof of innocence." I have often heard also and experienced that Methodists are cjnsidered perfect Christians — if they wear a long face on the Sabbath — even although they should cheat their neighbors and have the best of a bargain every other day of the week. That is about alljl have heard of Protestant moral theology ; nor do I care to inquire any further. Suarez, Bellarmine, St. Augustine, Bossuet, Fenelon, Bourdaloue, Faber, Manning, Newman, etc., etc., all grand Catholic authors, ought to suffice without any Methodist sideshows. A new feature is introduced as a point scored against the Mowat Government, viz. : " The Koman Catholics succeed in getting the lion's share ox legis- 'i < 26 lative grants in favor of charitable institutions. The excuse for this unequal distribution is that Protestants are often re- ceived and cared for in such institutions." The Protestants must therefore get more humane treatment in Catholic insti- tutions, or why should they flock there '? They are not com- pelled to enter them, but go of their own free will. The real reason is that there is more work done, more people provided for, better appointments made, and everything else done in superior style in our charitable institutions. Tl re is a law in Ontario which says that a Government inspector shall make an annual visit to every charitable establishment, and according to his report of work done are the different grants made. The quotation from the Mail is about an alleged answer that came from Rome saying that in case of a Protestant patient dying in a Catholic hospital and sending for a minister, the authorities should "observe a passive attitude," which means neither to assist nor prevent any such minister from doing his duty. Catholics would be delighted if only such passive attitude in Protestant hosjntals were observed. As a rule, in Protestant hospitals, not Government, but real Protestant hospitals, no priest is ever allowed to enter. It is only within the last few years that Catholic priests have been allowed to enter the United States hospitals. The civil war taught the Americans lessons of toleration which have to be yet learned by the Methodist divines of this young Dominion. For at least 200 years, in the time of Pascal and Escobar, it was the law in England that any Roman Catholic priest who attended a dying member of his Church was liable to be first put on the rack, and hanged and then ((uartered. However, one pound of solid facts is worth tons of arguments. By allowing space for the following clipping from the New York Daily Tribune you will confer an additional favor on your humble servant, W. Flannery. St. Thomas, May 27, 1889. New York Tribune, May 12, 1889.—*' Every schoolboy," to use Macaulay's favorite phrase, remembers his touching tribute to the self-sacrifice of the Jesuit : ** If his ministry was needed in some country where his life was more insecure than that of a wolf ; where it was a crime to harbor him ; where the heads and quarters of his brethren, fixed in the public places, showed him what he had to expect, he went without remonstrance or hesitation to his doom. Nor is this heroic spirit yet extinct. When, in our time, a new and ter- rible pestilence passed round the globe, when, in some great lllili! 27 cities, fear had dissolved all the ties which hold society toge- ther, when the secular clergy had forsaken their flocks, when medical succor was not to be purchased by gold, when the strongest natural affections had yielded to the love of life, even then the Jesuit was found by the pallet which bishop and curate, physician and nurse, father and mother had deserted, bending over infected lips to catch the faint accents of confession, and holding up to the last, before the expiring penitent, the image of the expiring Eedeemer." LETTER V. To the Editor of the CatltoUc Record: The following letter was refused insertion in the columns, of the St. Thomas Journal. I penned it in reply to a last letter of Mr. Austin. As defendant I claimed to be heard last, but the editor had exercised his privilege of cloture, and I was barred out. Begging of you to send me some extra copies of the letter for distribution among my Protestant friends, , I am, yours, etc., W. Flannery. To the Editor of the Journal : St. Thomas, June 10th, 1889. Sir, — I was absent in Essex on a confirmation tour with the Bishop of this Diocese when Mr. Austin's last letter ap- peared in your columns. Since then I have been very busy preparing for the Bishop's reception in this parish, and have not had for some weeks one day I could call my own. I now take advantage of a day's leisure to remove some false impressions Mr. Austin's last letter may havo left on some minds. But, as I hope this may be my final and good-for-all last letter, I ask leave to summarize the letters that have been written so far. Mr. Austin opened with a terrible onslaught on the Jesuit Fathers. I speak from memory. Their arraign- ment for the abominable crimes of murder, arson, perjury, usury, etc., was indeed formidable, and all things looked desolation on the Jesuit side of the house. I fancy, however, that 1 proved that the Jesuits are not, and never have been, the immoral wretches they have been represented. I proved from unbiased history that they were not guilty of the mur- 28 :i 'u^'* i ■I der of William the Silent, by giving the name of the real murderer and citing day and date and circumstance of the murder, Mr. Austin again accused the Jesuits of having as- sassinated Henry III., King of France. Again I named the murderer, with day and date, etc., mentioning the page in history where found. I did the same for the murderer of Henry IV., King of France, who was most faithfuily attached, as I proved, to the Jesuit Fathers. I showed that St. Alphon- sus Liguori assisted at the death-bed of Pope Clement XIV., and His attendant physician denied that this Pope died an unnatural death, and vet Mr. Austin accused the Jesuit Fathers of having murdered him. He again accused them of having caused the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, by which several hundred Huguenots, or Calvinists, were ban- ished from France. I showed from irrefutable facts and arguments that the Jesuits were not at all concerned or con- sulted with in this matter, and that Louis XIV., who did banish them on account of their sympathizing with his ene- mies in Holland, was at that time establishing the Gallican liberties in France, and for tliis reason quarrelled with the Jesuits and the Pope, who was then Innocent XI. When Mr. Austin saw how closely he was cornered on all these false and abominable accusations, he said he would let them pass ; he would not insist upon all these points, and because he called them disputed records he wanted me to say no more about them; and, anyhow, he said that I was manufacturing his- tory. This I denied, and proved my denial, and now I main- tain that were I so low minded and so bereft of all decency as to manufacture history, I would not deem myself half so wicked or so totally un-Christian as the man who wantonly and audaciously but falsely accused good and saintly priests of God of the most atrocious and most revolting crimes. Mr. Austin and all those who hate the Jesuits without knowing them find much comfort in the fact that the Jesuits were banished from so many Catholic countries. But not one of them has ever yet been able to tell the public the rea- sons or the crimes for which they were so banished. I defy Mr. Austin ; I defy the Mail ; I defy all the worst enemies of the Jesuits to tell us one crime that was ever proved home against any Jesuit. I defied Mr. Austin to name one Jesuit in Canada, or the United Stales or any part of Europe, who has ever been arraigned before a civil tribunal for any misde- meanor. Mr. Austin has not been able to do it. I defy any other body of men on earth to show the same unblemished, unvarying record. And, therefore, I maintain that, take them all in all, with their past glorious and saintly record, that for 29 private and public virtue, for burning zeal for God's honor and glory, for self-sacrifice and love of their fellow men, there is no such body of men on the broad face of this earth. One of their number, St. Francis Xavier, baptized two millions of Bouls in Japan ; St. Francis Borgia left the court of Spain ** to deny himself, take up his cross, and follow Jesus." Lallement and Brebctnif consecrated the soil we live on with martyrs' blood ; the Jesuit priest Marquette first sailed up our lakes and discovered the Mississippi. His grave is honored to-day, and a city named after him. A few years ago the Americans celebrated his centennial with unusual splendor, with speeches, music and poems sung and recited. Were not Ontario cursed with the sin of black ingratitude, instead of reviling her benefactors, Jthe Jesuits, she should be to-day oc- cupied in raising monuments to perpetuate the memory of her earliest founders. But the day will come when Ontario will ])e found celebrating the feast days of her patronal saints and martyrs, Lallement and Breb(t'uf. I will venture a reason why the Jesuits were banished from so many C;itliolic countries. In those countries the politicians are divided between Ultramontaries or Catholics, and Infidels or Li])crals. Whenever the Infidels, by means of organization, by means of secret lodges and carbonari, or godless secret societies, get the upper hand, their first act of policy is to banish the Jesuits. The Catholic Church is blamed unjustly for having once banished the Huguenots — but the Infidels are praised by Mr. Austin and others for hav- ing several times banished the Jesuits. It would occupy too much space in your journal were I to enumerate the infamies of tlie Court of Louis XV., King of France, when Pompadour and her lascivious court ruled that unfortunate country, and because the Jesuits did, what I believe the Methodist preach- ers would have done, viz., denied the sacraments to the scandal mongers, they were banished. They gloried in their banishment. The corrupt and eft'ete Bourbon kings of Spain and Portugal were similarly at the mercy of lewd women and corrupt ministers, D'Aranda in Spain and de Pompbal in Portugal. Were the whole truth made known to-day there is not an honest man in Canada, or a sincere, God-fearing preacher in the Protestant Church who would not applaud the Jesuit Fathers for the stand they took in those days, and hold them up for imitation to every Christian minister as models of piety and fearlessness, of zeal and self-sacrifice to vindicate the honor of women and the glory of God. Mr. Austin, in order to blacken the character of the Jesuit Order, quoted some garbled extracts from the pages of I'i^ 30 a Jesuit theologian named Escobar, written in Latin, and banded down to him in hrencb from a prejudiced author named Pascal. At first Mr. Austin f^avc those extracts as genuine, as though he had the book right before him. But I knew that no book of Escobar's can be had for love or money, and that it was utterly impossible for Escobar to have found his way to Alma College. I then charged Mr. Austin with quoting second-band, and informed the public that Mr. Austin had nothing reliible to advance for what he called an " acknowledged record." Escobar wrote about fifty years before the Battle of the Boyne, UVU, and all Mr. Austin could know about him was some miscjuotations and falsiiica- tions of passages that were invented by Pascal in his famous ** Provincial Letters." It is certain also that Pietro, or rather Paolo Sarpi, the Servite, was excommunicated nominatim by Paul v., and yet ho is put forward persistently as a good Catholic author. But Mr. Austin never saw the works of Pietro Sarpi. He has to rely on Pascal for any knowledge of his writings. In fact the only foundation on which he has to depend for his repeated cluirgea of depravity against the Jesuits is Pascal. Does my rev. friend know that in the Courc of Queen's Bench, ^Montreal, a few weeks ago, Pascal was ruled out of court as being utterly unreliable and worth- less as a witness against the Jesuits? It is a fact, however. I had already proved from Voltaire and Chateaubriand that Pascal is wholly unreliable, that " he has bequeathed to us an immortal lie," that his writings were condemned by the Par- liament of Aix in France, and copies of them burnt by the hands of the public executioner. Yet Mr. Austin calls him a good man and a safe author, although it has been stated on good evidence that nine hundred falsifications of passages were proved against him. In vain have I appealed to Mr. Austin to attend to the warnings of Holy Scripture : *' My son, have nothing to do with detractors, for their destruction shall rise suddenly ; and who knoweth the ruin of both." (Pro. xxiv:21.) In vain have I reminded him that "the Lord hateth and His soul detesteth. . .a deceitful witness that uttereth lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren." (Prov. vi:16.) Mr. Austin has quoted Gury, but has not given either volume or chapter or page, although challenged to do so. I am, therefore, entitled to hazard the statement that Mr. Austir never saw a copy of Gury's Moral Theology, that he quotes him second-hand, and, therefore, his arguments on that head are utterly worthless. In his last letter he goes into hysterics over Gury for teaching that it is no sin to de- r 31 fraud the customs. I have two volumes of Gury here on my table, and 1 am ready to swear that Gury teaches nothing of the kin J. On the contrary, ho teaches the very reverse. Here is the principle he lays down : Leges quae Vc'santur circa Iribula, gene ratim spectntoe nun sunt mere penales, sed obligant in conscientia, etc., (|uoting Matth. 22:21, "Give to Ctusar," etc. The boys of the collegiate will translate the above for Mr. Austin. They mean that ** Custom laws oblige in con- science, not as mere penal laws," because deemed necessary for the protection of trade or tlie revenues of the coimtry. {Deliesti- tiUione oh frauihitionon in trihnlis, page 82!).) However, Gury says that he would not condemn a poor man who lived on the borders and brought over a small quantity. Would Mr. Austin condemn him ? Did Mr. Austin, or any of his friends, ever bring over a gold pin or a watch from Detroit, and say nothing al)out it to the custom house officers '? Is it generally considered a very grevious sin'? Mr. Austin believes that such trifles are not sinful when perpetrated by an ordinary man — a Methodist preacher for instance — but it would be a horrible crime for any Jesuit to attempt such open violation of the laws of our country. in my last letter 1 (pioted a passage Irom Lord Macauley, in testimony of the self-sacrificing spirit of the Jesuit Fathers. Mr. Austin offsets this by asking why did I not quote all the rest of Macauley ? How could I do it ? It would require volumes. Macauley is a Protestant author and opposed to the Jesuits. Any passages by him against the Jesuits are to be expected. What 1 quoted from him tells very much in their favor as being an admission from the enemy, and can- not be offset by the rest of his book, which is avowedl}^ writ- ten to their prejudice. Mr. Austin, however, will make no admission. In his base ingratitude he will give no credit to the Jesuit Fathers for all their stupendous works, and their wonderful success in introducing the gospel to the dusky denizens of every savage country under the sun. He will not credit them with having cc nverted the Huron and fierce Iro- quois, with having taught the Paraguyan of South America, and the Sioux and Grosventres of the Rockies, how to be self- reliant and virtuous. He can say nothing of them but what is base and cruel and utterly false. It is to me inconceivable how men living in the midst of social luxuries surrounded with dainties and all the allure- ments of perfume and music and women's society, can have the audacity to sit in judgment on the great and saintly characters of the Jesuit Order, who are starving with the fishermen on the coasts of Labrador, or exposing themselves > '•< i it ll I I -1 . ' . 32 to death in yellow fever hospitals, and who are forever found away on the frontiers of civilization, cross in hand, extending and pushing forward the boundaries of the kingdom of Christ. The record of the Jesuit Fathers is not a question of opinion between Mr. Austin and mvself. We are nobodies ; but it is a question of truth and of history independent of us botli. I am certain the Protestant public is anxious to hear the whole truth, whether it ))e for or against the Jesuits. There is a natural craving in every human soul for the truth. There- fore I do not fear to displease any of my Protestant friends by refuting the sophisms and laying bare the calumnies of Pietro Sarpi, or of Pascal, or of liev. H. F. Austin. Well and truly hath Hon. David ]\IiUs spoken when he de- clared that were it not for a few preachers seeking notoriety there would be no agitation in Ontario on the Jesuits' Estate Act. All justice-loving people must acknowlev FiMiii till' Ciitliolic Rrcoi'd, MiUTli Ifi, 1SS!». The folI()win<» letter from ]lev. Father Flaniiery, associate cdili)]' of the Catholic IIecohd, appeared in the daily papers ou Moiida}^ last, ft was written in reply to a letter from J)ean Innes, ])nbli8hed in the Free Prcsn lawt week, in which the rev. gentleman attacked the statements contained in our leading article in the issue of the 2nd instant : To THio Kditoii: On Friday last tlioro apiicninnl a lottor from the ptiii of the Von. Dtuui Innes, ol' litis city, in uhii'li tlio editors of tli(! Catmomc Ki:c()i;i> are accu.sed of J>illinj,^s;j;ate, want (tf courtesy, etc, because their journal made some sliar[> cf)mments, last week,ou his published (jstinuite of the .lesnits. As one of its editors, 1 feel (-ailed upon to state that the KiccoKi) never conltl think of contestin,:;- his ri;j:ht, or the rlixlit and duty of any other cl(^r;^'yman, to \indicate the doctrines of the (.'iuin'h of which he is an accredited, and, no doubt, in every sense, an exemplary ex- l)onent. lUit that is no reason why 'he liKcoui), or its editors, should allow cli^rijymen holdii.g Responsible i)Ositions to misrepresent and attack, as the \'on. Dean has done, the princij)les iMul the teachinjrs of accredited nuiust'iiact. The Yen. Pean is willing; to atlmit that, the .lesuits (I (|Uote his words) "are in gcMieral an earnest, zealous, self-sacrificing body of men, : ]id many of them very talented."' .... "This country is undoulttedly, "n it- earlv bist(jry, indebted to them, in some respei'ts, espe<'ially fo;" the self- sacrifice and zeal with which tliey devoteil tluunselves to the educalion and civilization of the native tribes."' AVith all this in their favor, how is it j)o.ssil)le the Dean can briny himself to say almost in the next breath : ''Tiio .lesnits have been one of the greatest curses on earth. Their prin- ci])les are wronir, and their whole system a falsehood." If the JxEcoui) were guilty of such unmeasured and sweeping denun- ciations of any Pn^testant body of men,tlie Ven. Dean would have reason to complain of want of courtesy and Billingsgate. The Dean bases his condemnation of the Jesuits not on what he admits them to be to-day : " Earnest, zealous, self-sacrificing men," but on what they are rei^.rted by histtjry to have lieen over a hunilred years ago. 2sow, histories dilfer, and the Ven. Dean may have read one preju- dical to the Jesuits. It must have been a very ])artial and jaundiced history, indeed, that would nnU^e him call such earnest and self-sacrific- ing men of God "the greatest curse that ever api)eared on earth." But now for the'^facts. "Let the following list of expulsions f- oni Roman Catholic countries, and by Roman Catholic rulers sufiice." says the Ven. l)ean. "Bull issued in"l741, by Benedict XIY., in which he calls the Jesuits disobedient, craftj', and reprobate men." With the Dean's permission 1 deny this utterly. There is no such Bull in exist- ence, and if the Dean ever read of such a Bull in some controversial Work, he should have probed into history, and he would iiave found it to be a genuine "cock-an'-a-BuU-story." It ia true that Pombal, the corrupt 34 li I ' U iiiinistor of rortnjjiil.Hont instructions to the Portuj^ese niinistor ut konio to rocjuost lUmediot X 1 V. to condemn tlio .U^sults. Hut tlio I'ojki, who was always a /oalous friend and udmiror of tlio .losuit On er, appointed Cardinal Saldliaiui, Archbishop of Lishon, Apontolic Visitor; direi^ting him to renort on all casos, but to proceed, said the IVmt iff, with the (.'reat- est consiaeration toward a society "which has," said he, "deserved «(» well of the Church, and whiidi has, at the price of its sweat and bl(»od, borne the lij;ht of faith to the ends of the earth." [Parras Hist. Ecdes., vol. iv., page 40().] ^ Bo much for the liull of Benedict XIV. Next comes expulsion of the .lesuita from l'ortu<;al. Is tlie \'en. Dean i)repared to take sides with the infamous I'ombal, the vilest and most tyrannical Triiue ^Iini«t(T that over disjiraced tlie annals of history? 1\m)H he not know how Pond)al, who hated the Jesuits because they opposed his intrigues, made poor King .Joseph lOmanuel believe that they had mines of gold in Paraguay; that one of them was elecU^d emperor in that colony under the name of Nocolas I.; that the Jesuits wanted lo murder him and put his brother I'etlro on the throne; that Tombal sent an army to drive the Paraguaians from the happy homes made for them by Christian civilization and teaching of the Jesuits, and that, because the Jesuit Fathers tried to protect the poor Indians, they were all imprisoned in lilthy dungeons to the number of 250, and several of them horribly tortured to death. Is the Ven. Dean ready to espouse the cause of this monster of a Prime Minister who, in a subseiiuent reign, was tried, condemned and sentenced to death for bis abominable crimes, and "'ho died imjxuiitent, blasphem- ing ( ukI ? Expulsion from I'ranco ! Again we must appeal to history. We are told that the .lesuits, like St. tlohn the Haptist, condemned the guilty amours of Louis XV., King of France. JSladame Pompadour, a brazen- faced Jezabel, usurped the ])lace of bis virtuous and amiable consort, Mario Leckzinska, daughter of the Kingof I'oland. Choiseul. a particular friend and disciple of Voltaire, was Prime Minister. Voltaire's nuttto was "ecrasez I'lnfame," which, in common parlance, means extinguish the Church, or, " blot out Christianity." Besides those Infidels and lewd women (for Pompadour had a seraglio in her train) came th(^ .lansenists, fanatics condemned by the Church, who all plotted the 8upj)re8sion of the Jesuit Order and obtained the object of their w islies from a weak, voluptuous king. The Jesuits were banished, and all their colleges closed or occupied by Voltairiens, in the year 1702. Thirty years after- wards a new generation bad been born and educated in the new* schools. What was the result? The most terrible and bloody revolution that ever horrified humanity by its butcheries. In 17i)0 the successor of Louis XV. was beheaded on the i)ublic square of La Grave, in Paris, to the deafening sound of 200 drums. The reign of terror was begun, and dur- ing fourteen years subsef]uently the fair fields of France were deluged with the blood of its best citizens and of Catholic priests, who refused to trample on the Crucifix and deny the existence of God. I ask again, is the Ven. Dean prepared to take sides with Choiseul, Pompadour, the Jansenists and the Infidels Voltaire and Diderot, against the Jesuit Fathers, to whom he acknowledges Canada is so deeply indebted? As well might he have taken sides with Herodias and her dancing daughter against the pure-souled martyr of chastity — the intrepid St. John the Baptist Similar intrigues are related in history of the corrupt Infidel Prime Minister, D'Aranda, in Spain, against the Jesuits. In the year 17(50 a riot took ]ilace in Madrid, known as that of tbe Sombreros. The royal authority was overthrown and King Charles III. obliged to retreat to Aranjuez. The disturbance, which the guards could not quell, was appeased by the Jesuits, who were very popular in Spain. Unfortunately, they were cheered by the crowd which accompanied Uiem 15 to the doors of their monafltory, shouting: " Vlvent lea Peres I" This cir« cnnriHtunco was taken advuntugo of by their enemies, D'Choiseul in Paris, romhul in Liwhon, and D'Aranda, tlie unbelieving Prime Minister, who hated tlio .loHuits on actcount of their poimltirity. The King received ad- vities from Paris, stating: " It was not difticult for tlio Jesuits to quell the riot, wliich tiioy hud tlicimaelves excited." D'Aranda (whom tlio Prott»stant historian H(;hoell represents as trans- ported with the praises wliich Iniidel Paris lavished on him) and Ids colleague, the Duke of Alba(convi(^ted afterwards of having forged letters attributed to the Jesuita), were the bitterest enemies of the Fathers. Even Uanke, Protestant historian (History of the Panacy, iv. U)4\ says : "They ^>er8ua(led Cluirles III. that the .lesnits wishea to put his brother Don Luiz in his place. (Jhoiseid had forgcfd documents, circulated all over Spain, to the ellect that the King was tlie illegitimate child of Eliza- beth Farneso and King Philip, and tlierefore should be dethroned. These letters were attributed to the .h^suits." The Protestant historian, Siz- niondi (Hist, of the French, xxix. 1570), says : ''The plots and counter- plots, slanderous accuHations, forged letters," intended to be intercepted, and which were, in short, determined the resolution of the King." The Jesuits were condemned without a hearing. In a single day all the .lesuits in Spain, to tlio number of <»,000, were arrested, and all their papers and ellects seized. They tliemsei -'s were tlirown into the holds of sbijia unseau'ortliy and leaking, and cast iipon the shores of foreign lands. They were not given a fair trial or askvul to defend themselves. The Pigotts and the Iloustons were, in those days, allowed to triumph in their rascality. There was no Sir ('liarles Rusnell ])erni(tted to unmask the conspiracy and save saintly and honorable men from the imputation of high trea.son and the punishment of contiscation, exile and death. Is the \'en. Dean going to approve of all this? Jt would api)ear oo from his wholesale condemnation of the Fatiiers as "one of the chief curses that ever visited earth. The next argument adduced in favor of the condemnation of the Jesuits is the Bull of Sui^pression by Clement XIV. It inust be admitted that in 17715 there existeil neither railroads nor telegraphic communica- tion. It took a long tiuie for truth to travel across continents and over seas and mountains, especially when very few travelled, except those commissioned by kings or their prime ministers. It was a very easy nuittor in those days to misrepresent facts and events, and to calumniate religious bodies, whose pure evangelizing teachings were opposed to the Infidel tendencies and the immoral practices of the corrupt and effete Pourbon Courts of France, Spain and Portugal, Sicily, and even Austria. It might be understood how the united inlluence of all such wicked coun- sellors and archplotters, through their ambassadors, could disturb the mind of a young, innocent Po\)e, who, as Kanke tells us, "was one of the mildest and most moderate of men, who lived in retirement from the world, and liated (juarrels of any kind." It was represented to His Holi- ness that the Jesuits were giving trouble to the courts and governments of Euro{)e. And for peace sake he signed, not the Bull, but the Briet^— which is ((uite a diilerent thing— in which he says, not what the Ven. Dean writes, but what the historian Kanke says: "Inspired by the Divine Spirit, as we tnist, urged by the duty of re- storing concord to the Church, convinced that the Society of Jesus can no longer effect those purposes for which it was founded, and moved by other motives of prudence and wise government, which we keep locked in our own breast, we abolish and annul the Society of Jesus, its offices, houses and institutions." All may see how hesitatingly this Brief is worded, and how reluct- antly it must have been wrung from him by the fears of greater evils than the suppression of the Jesuits. "Never, perhaps, in modern times," 'i 86 Bays Schall, •* has the Pontifical See found itself in a crisis so fearful. The anti-religious party niled in every court, and it is certain that tlie various states meditated scliism. Clement XIV. dispelled the duii;j;er." Tlie Jesuits, throwu overboard, like Jonas, quelled the storm. But Jonas was restored — and so were the Jesuits. F-very other roi>e sustained the .Tesuits a^'ainst their enemies, who were the .hmsenists, tlie Inhdols, the Je/.ahels, the corrupt Statesmen and the Kin^s of Kurope l>e^'et with inlidel tendencii'S and tyrannical dis- pc^sitions. To show how Pope Clement XIV. was driven by the force of circum- stances to suppress the Jesuit Order apiinst his inclination, it is sufhcient merely to i Miiion the very tirst Bull of his ]K)ntilicatt' " ciclcs tium munerum," whii-h is in their favor, and in wliich he says : "As wp reckon among those fiulhl'ul laborers, in the lields of the Lord, the rclitzious of the Society of Jcsns, wt^ most assureiUy desire lo nourish and iuiTcase by spiritual favors, tlie enterprisinsr and active piety of those reliyiiiis men." But to come nearer Irome, let us find out the causes of the trouble between the Jesuits and Frontenac. Here, f.rtunatcly, we arc not oh- liired, like tlie Dean, to (juote a jzarbled sentence iVdin l-aimiaiuicl, Aphor, Confi'ssariorum, or from lii'tli-hand editions of Gabriel Velas(inez, where neither volume, article, er page is mentioned. I (piote from something more easily procureci, "the Child's History of Canada," by Henry Miles, jNI. a., LL. J)., J). C. L., samtionetl by the Council of Public Instruction, (Quebec. Here I lind tliat Bishop Laval was a mem- ber of the l^upreme Coum-il. It is not true, as stated by Mean Innes, tluit 'iiishoj) Laval was a .lesuit. In the capacity of Sujireme ( 'ounsellur it was in Bisliop Laval's right to disagree with Governor Frontenac. And not only Allies" history, but every other history, ndates how the Jesuits (piarrelU'd with (toveriiors D'Argenson, H'Avauimour and I'nm- tenac on the iiuestion of the liipier traff.c. These (iovernors wer(5 feathering tl'.eir own nests by introducing, or allowing to V)e intrnduced, lire-water hy the ship-load among tlu^ Indians. The trnttic nigh ruined the great work accomplished by the nissionaries. Tlie savages came to like lire-water so much, that they would part wi'h furs, clothing, even their very children in order to obtain it. All the faults of tiie Indians were made worse by drunkenness. The missionaries at (Quebec com- jtlained that the use of lire-water supplied to the Indians liad destroyed their labors of thirty years. But the (rovernors connived at the open infraction of the severe laws enacted by tlie Supreme Council, and sanc- tioned by the Kings of France, against this debasing, ruinous litpior traffic, if, therefore, the Jesuits came in conllict with tin? Governors of their day, it was in defence of the lives and souls of the Indians im- l)erilkHl by the infamous rupior traffic encouraged by said (iovernors. And now. we ask in all seriousness, is posterity going to condemn the Jesuit Fathers for protecting and saving their neophites, body and soul, at the dictation of Ven. Dean innes? We trow not. But, in tiiis instance, as in all others, where true history is allowe«l to speak, we lind the much slandered, much-abused Jesuit Feathers on the side of temperance, on the side of ^mre morality, on the side of the iK>or and the oppressed, against the cupidity, the lust and the tyranny of tlio i)eople'8 oppressors. Tlie Jesuits were the fathers of the ]K>or and tlie pioneers of pure morality and civilization in every land. They did in their day, and did effectually, what advanced Protestant missionaries are now striving for in Ontario. They established the White Cross Leagues on every point of vantage ground along the lakes and great rivers of our countrj'; and they destroyed the liciuor traffic, which it would be well for the Ven. Dean U> designate, instead of the Jesuits, " as one of the greatest curses that ever fi- V'f w 3r visited tho earth," but which by implication he sustains, with the corrupt Governors D'Argensoii and Frontenac. Tlie Yen. Dean saj's that Protestants don't forget, if we do, that Ignatius of Loyolii and C'aratia renewed tlie inquisition in 1542. Neither sliouhl lie forget wliat occurrod in Knglund at tlie same period. We are iiuito willing, if ho allows us, to forget how the Church of which lie is a dignitary hnpti/ed its cradle in the Mood of ^ir Thomas More, of liishop Fisher, and of others. It is the men of to-day wo have to deal with, ami not with (ho Siinguinary oodo of three hundred years gone bye, wlu>se ena(!tnionts prevuilod both in Protestant and Caiholic countries. The .lesuits of to-(hiy are known and revered by all who have met theia, or heard them, or seen their good works. They are the foremost men, as the)' an> the most zealous, the most talented and most irreproachable body of clergymen in this or any other country. They are the pride and the ornament of the Catholic Church, iind the Dean must not fancy that in shuuloring them he is not giving ollonce to the Roman Catholics of this city, and of other towns and places whore his letter is read and conned over. In Saturdays issue of the Free Press the Yen. Dean lays down the l)rincii)lo that detraction and abuse is the charat^teristic of a vulgar, coarse and nntrodly mind. In fact he poses as a pink of Christian per- fection in courtesy. Why, then, l)elie all this in making such an unpro- voked and w it'ked attack up(jn a bo