“J” Entries

Jerusalem, Fall of, Conditions in Nation Preceding.—Never was a people so turbulent, so excited with expectation of a deliverer who should restore the ancient kingdom, so fired with bigotry and fanaticism, as were the wretched Jews of this period. One Christ came after another. Revolt was succeeded by revolt, instigated by some pseudoprophet or pretended king.—“History of the World,” John Clark Ridpath, LL. D., Part III, chap. 62 (9 vol. ed., Vol. III, p. 291). Cincinnati: The Jones Brothers Pub. Co., 1910.SBBS 257.6

Jerusalem, Fall of, Unrest, Wars, and Tumults in Decades Preceding.—Now as for the affairs of the Jews [in time of Nero], they grew worse and worse continually, for the country was again filled with robbers and impostors, who deluded the multitude.—“Antiquities of the Jews,” Josephus, book 20, chap. 8, par. 5.SBBS 258.1

Now the people of Casarea [Syrians] had slain the Jews that were among them on the very same day and hour [when the soldiers were slain], which one would think must have come to pass by the direction of Providence; insomuch that in one hour’s time above twenty thousand Jews were killed, and all Casarea was emptied of its Jewish inhabitants; for Florus caught such as ran away, and sent them in bonds to the galleys. Upon which stroke that the Jews received at Casarea, the whole nation was greatly enraged; so they divided themselves into several parties, and laid waste the villages of the Syrians.—“Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, book 2, chap. 18, par. 1.SBBS 258.2

7. But for Alexandria [Africa], the sedition of the people of the place against the Jews was perpetual....SBBS 258.3

8. Now when he [the governor] perceived that those who were for innovations would not be pacined till some great calamity should overtake them, he sent out upon them those two Roman legions that were in the city, and together with them five thousand other soldiers, who, by chance, were come together out of Libya, to the ruin of the Jews.... No mercy was shown to the infants, and no regard had to the aged; but they went on in the slaughter of persons of every age, till all the place was overflowed with blood, and fifty thousand of them lay dead upon heaps.—Id., book 2, chap. 18, pars. 7, 8.SBBS 258.4

Jerusalem, Fall of, False Christs Preceding.—Very soon after our Saviour’s decease appeared Simon Magus (Acts 8:9, 10), “and bewitched the people of Samaria, giving out that himself was some great one: to whom they all gave heed, from the least to the greatest, saying, This man is the great power of God.” He boasted himself likewise among the Jews, as the Son of God. Of the same stamp and character was also Dositheus the Samaritan, who pretended that he was the Christ foretold by Moses. ^{17And after the time of Jesus, Dositheus, of Samaria, wished to persuade the Samaritans that he was the Christ predicted by Moses; and he appeared to have gained some by his doctrine.—Origen contra Celsum, lib. 1, p. 372.} -“Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Bishop Thomas Newton, D. D., London, 1840, p. 375. London: William Tegg & Co., 1849.SBBS 258.5

1. Now [a. d. 46] it came to pass, while Fadus was procurator of Judea, that a certain magician, whose name was Theudas, persuaded a great part of the people to take their effects with them, and follow him to the river Jordan; for he told them he was a prophet, and that he would, by his own command, divide the river, and afford them an easy passage over it; and many were deluded by his words. However, Fadus did not permit him to make any advantage of his wild attempt, but sent a troop of horsemen out against them; who, falling upon them unexpectedly, slew many of them, and took many of them alive. They also took Theudas alive, and cut off his head, and carried it to Jerusalem.—“Antiquities of the Jews,” Josephus, book 20, chap. 5, par. 1.SBBS 258.6

4. There was also another body of wicked men gotten together [in the reign of Nero, a. d. 54-68], not so impure in their actions, but more wicked in their intentions; which laid waste the happy state of the city no less than did these murderers [the Sicarii]. These were such men as deceived and deluded the people under pretense of divine inspiration, but were for procuring innovations and changes of the government; and these prevailed with the multitude to act like madmen, and went before them into the wilderness, as pretending that God would there show them the signals of liberty [from the Roman yoke]. But Felix [the procurator] thought this procedure was the beginning of a revolt; so he sent some horsemen and footmen, both armed, who destroyed a great number of them.SBBS 259.1

5. But there was an Egyptian false prophet that did the Jews more mischief than the former; for he was a cheat, and pretended to be a prophet also; and got together thirty thousand men that were deluded by him; these he led round about from the wilderness to the mount which was called the Mount of Olives, and was ready to break into Jerusalem by force from that place; and if he could but once conquer the Roman garrison and the people, he intended to domineer over them by the assistance of those guards of his that were to break into the city with him.—“Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, book 2, chap. 13, pars. 4, 5. (All bracketed matter is supplied by the editors.)SBBS 259.2

Jerusalem, Fall of, Famine in Italy Preceding.—A failure in the crops [reign of Claudius], and a famine consequent thereupon, was regarded as a prodigy. Nor were the complaints of the populace confined to murmurs; they even gathered round the prince with tumultuous clamors while administering justice, and driving him to the extremity of the forum, pressed upon him in a violent manner; till at length, by means of a compact body of soldiers, he forced his way through the incensed multitude. It is certain, there was then in Rome provision only for fifteen days; and it was by the signal bounty of the gods and the mildness of the winter, that the public was relieved in its urgent distress. And yet in former days, distant provinces were furnished with supplies from the districts of Italy.—“The Works of Tacitus,” Vol. I, “The Annals,” book 12, chap. 44, par. 43, pp. 296, 297. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1863.SBBS 259.3

Jerusalem, Fall of, Famine in Syria Preceding.—In his [Claudius’s] reign there was a famine that prevailed over the whole world; an event, indeed, which has been handed down by historians very far from our doctrine; and by which the prediction of the prophet Agabus, recorded in the Acts of the Apostles, respecting the impending famine over the whole world, received its fulfilment.—“Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius, book 2, chap. 8 (p. 46). London: George Bell & Sons, 1889.SBBS 259.4

Jerusalem, Fall of, Pestilences Preceding.—Now when they [zealots] were slaying him [Niger], he made this imprecation upon them, that they might undergo both famine and pestilence in this war, and besides all that, they might come to the mutual slaughter of one another; all of which imprecations God confirmed against these impious men.—“Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, book 4, chap. 6, par. 1.SBBS 259.5

Jerusalem, Fall of, Earthquakes in Decades Preceding.—“‘And earthquakes in divers places,’ as particularly that in Crete in the reign of Claudius, mentioned by Philostratus in the life of Apollonius, and those also mentioned by Philostratus at Smyrna, Miletus, Chios, Samos.” [Grotius.] In all which places some Jews inhabited; and those at Rome mentioned by Tacitus; and that at Laodicea, in the reign of Nero, mentioned by Tacitus, which city was overthrown, as were likewise Hierapolis and Colosse; and that in Campania, mentioned by Seneca; and that at Rome in the reign of Galba, mentioned by Suetonius; and that in Judea, mentioned by Josephus.—“Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Bishop Thomas Newton, D. D., pp. 378; 379. London: William Tegg & Co., 1849.SBBS 260.1

In Asia city after city had been shattered to the dust by earthquakes. “The world itself is being shaken to pieces,” says Seneca, “and there is universal consternation.”-“The Early Days of Christianity,” Canon Farrar, chap. 27, sec. 2 (pp. 488, 489).SBBS 260.2

Jerusalem, Fall of, Forewarnings of Impending Doom.—Moreover, at that feast which we call Pentecost, as the priests were going by night into the inner [court of the] temple, as their custom was, to perform their sacred ministrations, they said that, in the first place, they felt a quaking, and heard a great noise, and after that they heard a sound as of the multitude, saying, “Let us remove hence.”SBBS 260.3

But, what is still more terrible, there was one Jesus, the son of Ananus, a plebeian and a husbandman, who, four years before the war began, and at a time when the city was in very great peace and prosperity, came to that feast whereon it is our custom for every one to make tabernacles to God in the temple, began on a sudden to cry aloud, “A voice from the east, a voice from the west, a voice from the four winds, a voice against Jerusalem and the holy house, a voice against the bridegrooms and the brides, and a voice against this whole people!” This was his cry, as he went about by day and by night, in all the lanes of the city. However, certain of the most eminent among the populace had great indignation at this dire cry of his, and took up the man, and gave him a great number of severe stripes. Yet did not he either say anything for himself, or anything peculiar to those that chastised him, but still went on with the same words which he cried before. Hereupon our rulers, supposing, as the case proved to be, that this was a sort of divine fury in the man, brought him to the Roman procurator, where he was whipped till his bones were laid bare; yet he did not make any supplication for himself, nor shed any tears, but turning his voice to the most lamentable tone possible, at every stroke of the whip his answer was, “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” And when Albinus (for he was then our procurator) asked him, who he was? whence he came? and why he uttered such words? he made no manner of reply to what he said, but still did not leave off his melancholy ditty, till Albinus took him to be a madman, and dismissed him.SBBS 260.4

Now, during all the time that passed before the war began, this man did not go near any of the citizens, nor was seen by them while he said so; but he every day uttered these lamentable words, as if it were his premeditated vow: “Woe, woe to Jerusalem!” Nor did he give ill words to any of those that beat him every day, nor good words to those that gave him food; but this was his reply to all men, and indeed no other than a melancholy presage of what was to come. This cry of his was the loudest at the festivals; and he continued this ditty for seven years and five months, without growing hoarse, or being tired therewith, until the very time that he saw his presage in earnest fulfilled in our siege, when it ceased; for as he was going round upon the wall, he cried out with his utmost force, “Woe, woe to the city again, and to the people, and to the holy house!” And just as he added at the last, “Woe, woe to myself also!” there came a stone out of one of the engines, and smote him, and killed him immediately; and as he was uttering the very same presages, he gave up the ghost.—“Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, book 6, chap. 5, par. 3.SBBS 260.5

Jerusalem, Fall of, Josephus on Jews’ Refusal to Repent.—For that it was a seditious temper of our own that destroyed it, and that they were the tyrants among the Jews who brought the Roman power upon us, who unwillingly attacked us, and occasioned the burning of our holy temple, Titus Casar, who destroyed it, is himself a witness, who, during the entire war, pitied the people who were kept under by the seditious, and did often voluntarily delay the taking of the city, and allowed time to the siege, in order to let the authors have opportunity for repentance.—Id., Preface, par. 4.SBBS 261.1

Jerusalem, Fall of, Sudden Withdrawal of Romans Giving Opportunity for Flight of Christians.—So the soldiers [of Vespasian, on first siege.—Eds.] undermined the wall, without being themselves hurt, and got all things ready for setting fire to the gate of the temple.SBBS 261.2

6. And how it was that a horrible fear seized upon the seditious, insomuch that many of them ran out of the city, as though it were to be taken immediately; but the people upon this took courage, and where the wicked part of the city gave ground, thither did they come, in order to set open the gates, and to admit Cestius as their benefactor who, had he but continued the siege a little longer, had certainly taken the city; but it was, I suppose, owing to the aversion God had already at the city and the sanctuary, that he was hindered from putting an end to the war that very day. ^{18There may another very important, and very providential, reason be here assigned for this strange and foolish retreat of Cestius; which, if Josephus had been now a Christian, he might probably have taken notice of also; and that is, the affording the Jewish Christians in the city an opportunity of calling to mind the prediction and caution given them by Christ about thirty-three years and a half before, that “when they should see the abomination of desolation” [the idolatrous Roman armies, with the images of their idols in their ensigns ready to lay Jerusalem desolate] “stand where it ought not;” or, “in the holy place;” or, “when they should see Jerusalem compassed with armies;” they should then “flee to the mountains.” By complying with which those Jewish Christians fled to the mountains of Perea, and escaped this destruction. See “Lit. Accompl. of Proph.,” pp. 69. 70. Nor was there, perhaps, any one instance of a more unpolitic, but more providential, conduct than this retreat of Cestius visible during this whole siege of Jerusalem; which yet was providentially such a “great tribulation, as had not been from the beginning of the world to that time; no. nor ever should be.”-Note by the translator, William Whiston.}SBBS 261.3

7. It then happened that Cestius was not conscious either how the besieged despaired of success, nor how courageous the people were for him; and so he recalled his soldiers from the place, and by despairing of any expectation of taking it, without having received any disgrace, he retired from the city, without any reason in the world. But when the robbers perceived this unexpected retreat of his, they resumed their courage, and ran after the hinder parts of his army, and destroyed a considerable number of both their horsemen and footmen.—Id., book 2, chap. 19, pars. 5-7.SBBS 261.4

Jerusalem, Fall of, Flight of Christians from City.—The whole body, however, of the church at Jerusalem, having been commanded by a divine revelation, given to men of approved piety there before the war, removed from the city, and dwelt at a certain town beyond the Jordan, called Pella.—“Ecclesiastical History,” Eusebius, book 3, chap. 5. London: George Bell & Sons, 1889.SBBS 261.5

Jerusalem, Fall of, Flight of Many When Roman Army Withdrew Temporarily.—After this calamity had befallen Cestius, many of the most eminent of the Jews swam away from the city, as from a ship when it was going to sink.—“Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, chap. 20, par. 1.SBBS 262.1

Jerusalem, Fall of, Grandeur of Temple of.—6. Now the outward face of the temple in its front wanted nothing that was likely to surprise either men’s minds or their eyes; for it was covered all over with plates of gold of great weight, and, at the first rising of the sun, reflected back a very fiery splendor, and made those who forced themselves to look upon it to turn their eyes away, just as they would have done at the sun’s own rays. But this temple appeared to strangers, when they were coming to it at a distance, like a mountain covered with snow; for as to those parts of it that were not gilt, they were exceeding white. On its top it had spikes with sharp points, to prevent any pollution of it by birds sitting upon it. Of its stones, some of them were forty-five cubits in length, five in height, and six in breadth.—Id., book 5, chap. 5, par. 6.SBBS 262.2

Jerusalem, Fall of, Efforts of Titus to Save the Temple.—Why do you trample upon dead bodies in this temple? and why do you pollute this holy house with the blood of both foreigners and Jews themselves? I appeal to the gods of my own country, and to every god that ever had any regard to this place; (for I do not suppose it to be now regarded by any of them;) I also appeal to my own army, and to those Jews that are now with me, and even to yourselves, that I do not force you to defile this your sanctuary; and if you will but change the place whereon you will fight, no Roman shall either come near your sanctuary, or offer any affront to it; nay, I will endeavor to preserve you your holy house, whether you will or not.—Appeal of Titus to Jews, in “Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, book 6, chap. 2, par. 4.SBBS 262.3

Jerusalem, Fall of, The Blind Infatuation of the Nation.—More sorrowful scenes than those which marked the downfall of the Holy City and the suppression of the Jewish people never transpired in the history of man; and never were any horrors more truly self-inflicted than these. Through every page the line seems to glow: “His blood be upon us and upon our children!” Everywhere reappears the same insensate fury; the same needless provoking of foes clearly too powerful to resist; the same foolhardy obstinacy, too near a sublime courage to be despised, too hopeless and too costly to be applauded.—“From Exile to Overthrow: A History of the Jews,” Rev. John W. Mears, D. D., p. 246. Philadelphia: Presbyterian Board of Publication.SBBS 262.4

Jerusalem, Fall of, Times Compared with French Revolution.—The zealots created and maintained a “reign of terror” akin to that of the French Revolution, only more dreadful, and, considering the available scope and compass, more bloody.—“Comments on Matthew,” James Morrison, p. 471.SBBS 262.5

Jerusalem, Fall of, Considered by the Romans as a Judgment.—1. Now when Titus was come into this [upper] city, he admired not only some other places of strength in it, but particularly those strong towers which the tyrants in their mad conduct had relinquished; for when he saw their solid altitude, and the largeness of their several stones, and the exactness of their joints, as also how great was their breadth, and how extensive their length, he expressed himself after the manner following: “We have certainly had God for our assistant in this war, and it was no other than God who ejected the Jews out of these fortifications; for what could the hands of men or any machines do towards overthrowing these towers?”-“Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, book 6, chap. 9, par. 1.SBBS 262.6

Jerusalem, Fall of, Survivors Carried Away Captive.—So this Fronto slew all those that had been seditious and robbers, who were impeached one by another; but of the young men he chose out the tallest and most beautiful, and reserved them for the triumph; and as for the rest of the multitude that were above seventeen years old, he put them into bonds, and sent them to the Egyptian mines. ^{19See the several predictions that the Jews, if they became obstinate in their idolatry and wickedness, should be sent again or sold into Egypt for their punishment. Deuteronomy 28:68; Jeremiah 44:7; Hosea 8:13; 9:3; 11:4, 5.} Titus also sent a great number into the provinces, as a present to them, that they might be destroyed upon their theaters, by the sword and by the wild beasts; but those that were under seventeen years of age were sold for slaves.—Id., book 6, chap. 9, par. 2.SBBS 263.1

Jerusalem, Fall of, The Multitude of Victims.—3. Now the number of those that were carried captive during this whole war was collected to be ninety-seven thousand; as was the number of those that perished during the whole siege eleven hundred thousand, the greater part of whom were indeed of the same nation [with the citizens of Jerusalem], but not belonging to the city itself; for they were come up from all the country to the feast of unleavened bread, and were on a sudden shut up by an army, which, at the very first, occasioned so great a straitness among them, that there came a pestilential destruction upon them, and soon afterward such a famine, as destroyed them more suddenly.—Id., book 6, chap. 9, par. 3.SBBS 263.2

Jerusalem, Fall of, Its Ruins Dug Up.—Yet was there no small quantity of the riches that had been in that city still found among its ruins, a great deal of which the Romans dug up; but the greatest part was discovered by those who were captives, and so they carried it away; I mean the gold and the silver, and the rest of that most precious furniture which the Jews had, and which the owners had treasured up under ground, against the uncertain fortunes of war.—Id., book 7, chap. 5, par. 2.SBBS 263.3

Jerusalem, Fall of, Plowed as a Field.—Afterwards, as we read in the Jewish Talmud and in Maimonides, Turnus Rufus, or rather “Terentius Rufus, who was left to command the army at Jerusalem,” did with a plowshare tear up the foundation of the temple; and thereby signally fulfilled those words of Micah 3:12: “Therefore shall Zion for your sake be plowed as a field.” Eusebius, too, affirms, “that it was plowed up by the Romans, and he saw it lying in ruins.” The city also shared the same fate, and was burned and destroyed as well as the temple.—“Dissertations on the Prophecies,” Bishop Thomas Newton, D. D., p. 372. London: William Tegg & Co., 1849.SBBS 263.4

Jerusalem, Fall of, Desolation Following.—1. Now as soon as the army had no more people to slay or to plunder, because there remained none to be the objects of their fury (for they would not have spared any, had there remained any other work to be done), Casar gave orders that they should now demolish the entire city and temple, but should leave as many of the towers standing as were of the greatest eminency; that is, Phasaelus, Hippicus, and Mariamne, and so much of the wall as inclosed the city on the west side. This wall was spared, in order to afford a camp for such as were to lie in garrison, as were the towers also spared, in order to denominate to posterity what kind of city it was, and how well fortified, which the Roman valor had subdued; but for all the rest of the wall, it was so thoroughly laid even with the ground, by those that dug it up to the foundation, that there was left nothing to make those that came thither believe it had ever been, inhabited.—“Wars of the Jews,” Josephus, book 7, chap. 1, par. 1.SBBS 263.5

Jerusalem, Fall of, Marked the End of Jewish Nation.—The annihilation of Jewish nationality was complete. Jerusalem was reduced to a ruin, and the survivors of her people were to be found exposed in the slave markets of Rome or groaning out their lives in the rock quarries of Egypt.—“History of the World,” John Clark Ridpath. LL. D., Part III, chap. 62 (9 vol. ed., Vol. III, p. 292). Cincinnati: The Jones Brothers Pub. Co., 1910.SBBS 264.1

Jesuits. -Jesuits, the name generally given to the members of the Society of Jesus, a religious order in the Roman Catholic Church, founded in 1539. This society may be defined, in its original conception and well-avowed object, as a body of highly trained religious men of various degrees, bound by the three personal vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience, together with, in some cases, a special vow to the Pope’s service, with the object of laboring for the spiritual good of themselves and their neighbors. They are declared to be mendicants and enjoy all the privileges of the other mendicant orders. They are governed and live by constitutions and rules, mostly drawn up by their founder, St. Ignatius of Loyola, and approved by the popes. Their proper title is “Clerks Regulars of the Society of Jesus,” the word Societas being taken as synonymous with the original Spanish term, Compania; perhaps the military term Cohors might more fully have expressed the original idea of a band of spiritual soldiers living under martial law and discipline. The ordinary term “Jesuit” was given to the society by its avowed opponents; it is first found in the writings of Calvin and in the registers of the Parlement of Paris as early as 1552.SBBS 264.2

Constitution and Character.-The formation of the society was a masterpiece of genius on the part of a man [Loyola] who was quick to realize the necessity of the moment. Just before Ignatius was experiencing the call to conversion, Luther had begun his revolt against the Roman Church by burning the papal bull of excommunication on the 10th of December, 1520. But while Luther’s most formidable opponent was thus being prepared in Spain, the actual formation of the society was not to take place for eighteen years. Its conception seems to have developed very slowly in the mind of Ignatius. It introduced a new idea into the church. Hitherto all regulars made a point of the choral office in choir. But as Ignatius conceived the church to be in a state of war, what was desirable in days of peace ceased when the life of the cloister had to be exchanged for the discipline of the camp; so in the sketch of the new society which he laid before Paul III, Ignatius laid down the principle that the obligation of the breviary should be fulfilled privately and separately and not in choir. The other orders, too, were bound by the idea of a constitutional monarchy based on the democratic spirit. Not so with the society. The founder placed the general for life in an almost uncontrolled position of authority, giving him the faculty of dispensing individuals from the decrees of the highest legislative body, the general congregations. Thus the principle of military obedience was exalted to a degree higher than that existing in the older orders, which preserved to their members certain constitutional rights.—The Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XV, art. “Jesuits,” p. 337, 11th edition, 1911.SBBS 264.3

Jesuits, Society of, Defined.—Society of Jesus (Company of Jesus, Jesuits), a religious order founded by St. Ignatius Loyola. Designated by him “The Company of Jesus” to indicate its true leader and its soldier spirit, the title was Latinized into Societas Jesu in the bull of Paul III approving its formation and the first formula of its institute (“Regimini Militantis Ecclesia,” 27 Sept., 1540). The term “Jesuits” (of fifteenth-century origin, meaning one who used too freely or appropriated the name of Jesus), was first applied to the society in reproach (1544-52), and was never employed by its founder, though members and friends of the society in time accepted the name in its good sense. The society ranks among religious institutes as a mendicant order of clerks regular, that is, a body of priests organized for apostolic work, following a religious rule, and relying on alms for their support.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, art. “Society of Jesus,” p. 81.SBBS 265.1

Jesuits, Government of.—The opinion is very generally current that the government of the Jesuit order is an absolute monarchy, and that the general is constitutionally an autocrat. But this is not the case. Undoubtedly an immense deal of power is concentrated in the head of the order, the general, and as a rule the whole of the executive power is in his hands. For all that, he is anything but an absolute ruler, and it would be hard to find a community in which the various powers are more delicately interbalanced than the Jesuit order.—“Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. I, pp. 418, 419. London: Cassell and Company, 1911.SBBS 265.2

Jesuits, Oath of Secrecy of.—“I, A. B., now in the presence of Almighty God, the blessed Virgin Mary, the blessed Michael the archangel, the blessed St. John Baptist, the holy apostles St. Peter and St. Paul, and the saints and sacred host of heaven, and to you my ghostly father, do declare from my heart, without mental reservation, that His Holiness Pope Urban is Christ’s vicar-general, and is the true and only head of the Catholic or Universal Church throughout the earth; and that by the virtue of.the keys of binding and loosing given to His Holiness by my Saviour Jesus Christ, he hath power to depose heretical kings, princes, states, commonwealths, and governments, all being illegal, without his sacred confirmation, and that they may safely be destroyed: therefore to the utmost of my power I shall and will defend this doctrine, and His Holiness’ rights and customs against all usurpers of the heretical or Protestant authority whatsoever: especially against the now pretended authority and Church of England, and all adherents, in regard that they and she be usurpal and heretical, opposing the sacred mother church of Rome. I do renounce and disown any allegiance as due to any heretical king, prince, or state, named Protestants, or obedience to any of their inferior magistrates or officers. I do further declare that the doctrine of the Church of England, of the Calvinists, Huguenots, and of others of the name of Protestants, to be damnable, and they themselves are damned, and to be damned, that will not forsake the same. I do further declare, that I will help, assist, and advise all, or any of His Holiness’ agents in any place, wherever I shall be, in England, Scotland, and Ireland, or in any other territory or kingdom I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestants’ doctrine, and to destroy all their pretended powers, regal or otherwise. I do further promise and declare, that notwithstanding I am dispensed with to assume any religion heretical for the propagation of the mother church’s interest, to keep secret and private all her agent’s counsels from time to time, as they intrust me, and not to divulge directly or indirectly, by word, writing, or circumstance, whatsoever; but to execute all what shall be proposed, given in charge, or discovered unto me by you my ghostly father, or by any of this sacred convent. All which I, A. B., do swear by the blessed Trinity, and blessed sacrament, which I now am to receive, to perform, and on my part to keep inviolably. And do call all the heavenly and glorious host of heaven to witness these my real intentions, and to keep this my oath. In testimony hereof, I take this most holy and blessed sacrament of the eucharist; and witness the same further with my hand and seal in the face of this holy convent.”-“Foxes and Firebrands,” Usher.SBBS 265.3

The antiquated form, which is of similar import, can be found in Baronius, who thus concludes his account of it: “Hactenus juramentum, etc. That is the oath which to that period all the prelates used to take.”-An. 723, and 1079. Lab. Concil., Tom. X, p. 1504; and Tom. XI, p. 1565 (Labbe and Cossart’s “History of the Councils,” Vol. X, p. 1504; and Vol. XI, p. 1565); cited in “The Roman Catholic Church and Its Relation to the Federal Government,” Francis T. Morton, pp. 40, 41. Boston: Richard G. Badger, 1909.SBBS 266.1

Jesuits, Their Services to the Papacy.—When the Jesuit order came into being, a fatal hour had struck for the Papacy. The movement originated by Luther, in connection with other causes, had caused the ship of St. Peter to rock dangerously. A world with a new philosophy of life was coming into view, which no longer recognized the Pope-God of the Middle Ages, the sovereign lord of the whole world in that capacity. Ultramontanism which, since Gregory VII, had been firmly established in its seat, and was ruling the world, in particular the political world, from Rome, under religious forms, felt the onset of the new age, whence the cry, “Free from Rome,” was already resounding.SBBS 266.2

Then the threatened Papacy found in the Jesuit order an ultramontane auxiliary regiment of extraordinary power and pertinacity. The papal dominion was to be reëstablished. The ultramontane system, with its secular and political kernel disguised under a garb of religion, was concentrated, as it were, in the constitutions of the Jesuit order, and even more in its well-calculated labors directed from central points. Words and deeds, teaching and example, of the new order, were a single great propaganda for the ultramontane Papacy. The doctrine of the “direct”-that is, the immediate dominion of the vicar of Christ over the whole world-had become untenable; the Jesuit order (e. g., Bellarmin and Suarez) replaced it completely by the doctrine of the “indirect” power.SBBS 266.3

There is not the least fraction of religion in this doctrine. Everything in it is irreligious and anti-Christian, but it is quite specially calculated for religious display, for it makes a pretense of God’s kingdom, which embraces this world and the next, which tolerates only one supreme ruler-God and his vicar-and thus makes this comprehensive political universal dominion an acceptable, even desirable, religious demand in the eyes of Catholics. The love of dominion implanted in the Jesuit order finds the greatest possibility of development in this doctrine, hence its never-resting zeal in trying to raise the indirect power of the Papacy to a fundamental dogma of church policy. The order, as such, cannot openly aspire to universal dominion; however powerful its equipment may be, it must always appear as a mere auxiliary member, a subordinate part of the Catholic whole, the Papal Church; the more it furthers the temporal political power of Rome and extends the religious belief in its justification among men, the more political power will it attain itself; the Papacy and its indirect power serve but as a screen behind which are concealed the Jesuit order and its aspirations for power. By its zeal and skill it becomes an indispensable servant of the Papacy, and thus acquires direct dominion over the wearers of the papal crown, and through them indirect dominion over the whole world.SBBS 266.4

Hence the continuous and detailed occupation with politics, forbidden by the constitutions as unreligious, but which became its most comprehensive sphere of activity by the religious road of confession.SBBS 267.1

It was this very political activity of the order which let loose the storm against it. And, as I have already shown, it was in the first instance the Catholic courts, at which the Jesuit confessor had carried on his religious activity for centuries, which demanded more and more eagerly the suppression of the order, and finally attained it from Clement XIV.—“Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, pp. 427-429. London: Cassell and Company, 1911.SBBS 267.2

Jesuits, Work of, Explained from the Roman Catholic Standpoint.—The society was not founded with the avowed intention of opposing Protestantism. Neither the papal letters of approbation nor the constitutions of the order mention this as the object of the new foundation. When Ignatius began to devote himself to the service of the church, he had probably not heard even the names of the Protestant Reformers. His early plan was rather the conversion of Mohammedans, an idea which, a few decades after the final triumph of the Christians over the Moors in Spain, must have strongly appealed to the chivalrous Spaniard.SBBS 267.3

The name “Societas Jesu” had been borne by a military order approved and recommended by Pius II in 1459, the purpose of which was to fight against the Turks and aid in spreading the Christian faith. The early Jesuits were sent by Ignatius first to pagan lands or to Catholic countries; to Protestant countries only at the special request of the Pope; and to Germany, the cradleland of the Reformation, at the urgent solicitation of the imperial ambassador. From the very beginning the missionary labors of Jesuits among the pagans of India, Japan, China, Canada, Central and South America were as important as their activity in Christian countries.SBBS 267.4

As the object of the society was the propagation and strengthening of the Catholic faith everywhere, the Jesuits naturally endeavored to counteract the spread of Protestantism. They became the main instruments of the counter-Reformation; the reconquest of southern and western Germany and Austria for the church, and the preservation of the Catholic faith in France and other countries were due chiefly to their exertions.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, art. “Society of Jesus,” p. 81.SBBS 267.5

Jesuits as Politicians.—It was chiefly as politicians that the Jesuits have won, and probably deserved, an infamous renown in history. The order was aggressive and ardent-full of grand schemes for the extirpation of heretics and the subjugation of England and the hardy North. Every member of the mighty league had sworn to give his life, if necessary, for the advancement of the faith; was ready to fly at a sudden notice to the farthest lands at the bidding of his superior or the Pope; and perhaps might merit some frightful punishment at home did he not obey his commander to the uttermost. The irrevocable vow and the long practice in abject submission made the Jesuits the most admirable instruments of crime. In the hands of wicked popes like Gregory XIII, or cruel tyrants like Philip 2, they were never suffered to rest. Their exploits are among the most wonderful and daring in history. They are more romantic than the boldest pictures of the novelist; more varied and interesting than the best-laid plots of the most inventive masters. No Arabian narrator nor Scottish wizard could have imagined them; no Shakespeare could have foreseen the strange mental and political conditions that led the enthusiasts on in their deeds of heroism and crime. Jesuits penetrated, disguised, into England when death was their punishment if discovered; hovered in strange forms around the person of Elizabeth, whose assassination was the favorite aim of Philip II and the Pope; reeled through the streets of London as pretended drunkards; hid in dark closets and were fed through quills; and often, when discovered, died in horrible tortures with silent joy. The very name of the new and active society was a terror to all the Protestant courts. A single Jesuit was believed to be more dangerous than a whole monastery of Black Friars. A Campion, Parsons, or Garnet filled all England with alarm. And in all that long struggle which followed between the North and the South, in which the fierce Spaniards and Italians made a desperate assault upon the rebellious region, strove to dethrone or destroy its kings, to crush the rising intellect of its people, or to extirpate the hated elements of reform, the historians uniformly point to the Jesuits as the active agents in every rebellion, and the tried and unflinching instruments of unsparing Rome.SBBS 267.6

A Jesuit penetrated in strange attire to Mary Queen of Scots, and lured her to her ruin. Another sought to convert or dethrone a king of Sweden. One conveyed the intelligence to Catherine and Charles IX that produced a horrible massacre of the reformers. One traveled into distant Muscovy to sow the seeds of endless war. Mariana, an eminent Jesuit, published a work defending regicide which was faintly condemned by the order, and soon Henry III fell by the assassin’s blow; William of Orange, pursued by the endless attempts of assassins, at last received the fatal wound; Elizabeth was hunted down, but escaped; Henry IV, after many a dangerous assault, died, it was said, by the arts of the Jesuits; James I and his family escaped by a miracle from the plot of Fawkes and Garnet; while many inferior characters of this troubled age disappeared suddenly from human sight, or were found stabbed and bleeding in their homes. All these frightful acts the men of that period attributed to the fatal vow of obedience.SBBS 268.1

The Jesuit was the terror of his times. Catholics abhorred and shrunk from him with almost as much real aversion as Protestants. The universities and the clergy feared and hated the unscrupulous order. The Jesuit was renowned for his pitiless cruelty. The mild Franciscans and Benedictines, and even the Spanish Dominicans, could not be relied upon by the popes and kings, and were cast contemptuously aside; while their swift and ready rivals sprung forward at the slightest intimation of their superior, and, with a devotion to their chief at Rome not surpassed by that of the assassins of the Old Man of the Mountains, flung themselves in the face of death.—“Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence, pp. 128, 129. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876.SBBS 268.2

Jesuits, Probabilism.—The doctrine of Probabilism was not originated by the Jesuits, but was wrought out by their writers during the seventeenth century with more minuteness than by earlier RomanSBBS 268.3

Catholic writers. According to this teaching one is at liberty to follow a probable opinion, i. e., one that has two or three reputable Catholic writers in its favor, against a more probable or a highly probable opinion in whose favor a multitude of the highest authorities concur. To justify any practice, however immoral it might be commonly esteemed, a few sentences from Catholic writers sufficed, and these were often garbled. Some Jesuits and some popes repudiated this doctrine. In 1680 Gonzales, an opponent of the doctrine, was made general of the society through papal pressure; but he failed to purge the society of Probabilism, and came near being deposed by reason of his opposition. Another antiethical device widely approved and employed by members of the society is mental reservation or restriction, in accordance with which, when important interests are at stake, a negative or a modifying clause may remain unuttered which would completely reverse the statement actually made. This principle justified unlimited lying when one’s interests or convenience seemed to require. Where the same word or phrase has more than one sense, it may be employed in an unusual sense with the expectation that it will be understood in the usual (amphibology). Such evasions may be used under oath in a civil court.SBBS 269.1

Equally destructive of good morals was the teaching of many Jesuit casuists that moral obligation may be evaded by directing the intention when committing an immoral act to an end worthy in itself; as in murder, to the vindication of one’s honor; in theft, to the supplying of one’s needs or those of the poor; in fornication or adultery, to the maintenance of one’s health or comfort. Nothing did more to bring upon the society the fear and distrust of the nations and of individuals than the justification and recommendation by several of their writers of the assassination of tyrants, the term “tyrant” being made to include all persons in authority who oppose the work of the papal church or the order. The question has been much discussed, Jesuits always taking the negative side, whether the Jesuits have taught that “the end sanctifies the means.” It may not be possible to find this maxim in these precise words in Jesuit writings; but that they have always taught that for the “greater glory of God,” identified by them with the extension of Roman Catholic (Jesuit) influence, the principles of ordinary morality may be set aside, seems certain. The doctrine of philosophical sin, in accordance with which actual attention to the sinfulness of an act when it is being committed is requisite to its sinfulness for the person committing it, was widely advocated by members of the society. The repudiation of some of the most scandalous maxims of Jesuit writers by later writers, or the placing of books containing scandalous maxims on the Index, does not relieve the society or the Roman Catholic Church from responsibility, as such books must have received authoritative approval before publication, and the censuring of them does not necessarily involve an adverse attitude toward the teaching itself, but may be a mere measure of expediency.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VI, art. “Jesuits,” pp. 146, 147.SBBS 269.2

Jesuits, Selections from Moral Theology of.—One who is asked concerning something which it is expedient to conceal, can say, “I say not,” that is, “I say the word ‘not;’ since the word “I say” has a double sense; for it signifies “to pronounce” and “to affirm:” now in our sense “I say” is the same as “I pronounce.”SBBS 269.3

A confessor can affirm, even with an oath, that he knows nothing of a sin heard in confession, by secretly understanding “as a man,” but not as a minister of Christ. The reason for this is, because he who asks has no right to any information except such as may properly be imparted, which is not the kind in the possession of the confessor. And this, even though the other may ask whether he has heard as the minister of Christ; because a confessor must always be held to reply as a man, when he is not able to speak as a minister of Christ. And if any one rashly demands of a confessor whether he has heard of such a sin in confession, the confessor can reply, “I have not heard it,” that is to say, as a man, or for the purpose of making it public. Likewise as often as one is bound to conceal the disgrace of another, he may lawfully say, “I do not know,” that is to say, “I do not have any knowledge of the matter which it is profitable to impart in reply,” or, “I do not know anything suitable to disclose.”SBBS 269.4

A penitent, when asked by a confessor concerning a sin already confessed, can swear that he has not committed it, understanding “that which has not been confessed.” This, however, must be understood unless the confessor rightly asks for the purpose of becoming acquainted with the state of the penitent.SBBS 270.1

A poor man who has hidden some goods in order to maintain himself can reply to the judge that he has nothing. In the same manner an heir who without an inventory has concealed some property, if he is not bound to satisfy creditors with this property, can reply to the judge that he has concealed nothing, understanding “of the property with which he is bound to satisfy [the creditors].” ...SBBS 270.2

A creditor can assert with an oath that nothing has been paid to him on an account, even though in fact a part has been paid, if he himself has a loan from another person [or source] which he is not able to prove; provided, however, that he does not swear that this sum is due him on that account, and that he does not inflict injury upon the other former creditors....SBBS 270.3

It is permissible to swear to anything which is false by adding in an undertone a true condition, if that low utterance can in any way be perceived by the other party, though its sense is not understood; not so, if it wholly escapes the attention of the other.—“Theologia Moralis,” Ligorio (R. C.), 3rd ed., Vol. I, pp. 128-130.SBBS 270.4

Jesuits, Their Moral Theology Dominant.—There is no other domain in which Jesuitism has succeeded so completely in forcing its domination on Catholicism as that of moral theology. The development which the practice of the confessional, i. e., the domination of the private and public life of Catholics by means of the confessional, has attained since the end of the sixteenth century within the Church of Rome-and it is the practice of the confessional which is concealed under the term “moral theology”-has been mainly brought about by the moral theologians of the Jesuit order. The present-day Catholic morality is penetrated throughout with Jesuit morality.SBBS 270.5

This important fact is most strikingly expressed by the circumstance that the greatest authority on moral theology in the Romish Church, Alfonso Maria di Liguori (died 1787), whom Gregory XVI canonized in 1839, and Pius IX, in 1871, honored with the rank and dignity of a doctor of the church, was merely the commentator of the moral theologians of the Jesuit order, especially the two most influential, Busenbaum and Lacroix.—“Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, pp. 286, 287. London: Cassell and Company, 1911.SBBS 270.6

Jesuits, Teaching of, Concerning the Power of the Church.—The Jesuits, though not the authors, are the most energetic champions and propagators of the doctrine of the indirect supremacy of the church (Papacy) over the state.SBBS 270.7

Since the two greatest theologians of the Jesuit order, Bellarmin and Suarez, reduced this doctrine, inclusive of the right of the Pope to depose princes, to a properly articulated system, it has been a roche[Original illegible] de bronze of ultramontane Catholic dogmatics and canon law, until at length the Syllabus of Dec. 8, 1864, and the encyclicals of Leo XIII and Pius X raised it from the sphere of theological opinions to the height of a dogmatically established doctrine. And this promotion is the work of the Jesuit order.SBBS 271.1

No matter what dogmatic, canonical, or moral-theological books by Jesuits we open, we encounter in all the indirect power of the church over the state. The subject is so important that I will cite numerous proofs. I will begin with the present general of the Jesuit order, Francis Xavier Wernz, a German from Würtemberg:SBBS 271.2

“The state is subject to the jurisdiction of the church, in virtue of which the civil authority is really subordinate to the ecclesiastical and bound to obedience. This subordination is indirect, but not merely negative, since the civil power cannot do anything even within its own sphere which, according to the opinion of the church, would damage the latter, but rather positive, so that, at the command of the church, the state must contribute towards the advantage and benefit of the church.”-“Jus Decretalium” (Roma), 1898-1901, 15 et seq.SBBS 271.3

“Boniface VIII pointed out for all time the correct relation between church and state in his constitution Unam Sanctam, of Nov. 18, 1302, the last sentence of which [that every person must be subject to the Roman Pope] contains a dogmatic definition [a dogma].” “The legislative power of the church extends to everything that is necessary for the suitable attainment of the church’s aims. A dispute which may arise as to the extent of the ecclesiastical legislative authority is not settled only by a mutual agreement between church and state, but by the infallible declaration or command of the highest ecclesiastical authority.”-Ib., 29, 105.SBBS 271.4

“From what has been said [namely, that the Pope may only make temporal laws in the Papal States], it by no means follows that the Roman Pope cannot declare civil laws, which are contrary to divine and canonical right, to be null and void.” “The theory, which calls the Concordats papal privileges, whilst denying the co-ordination of state and church, assumes the certain and undoubted doctrine that the state is indirectly subject to the church. This opinion is based on the Catholic doctrine of the Pope’s irrevocable omnipotence, in virtue of divine right, the valid application of which cannot be confined or restricted by any kind of compact.”-Ib., 147, 216.SBBS 271.5

“As it not infrequently occurs that, in spite of attempted friendly settlement, the dispute [between church and state] continues, it is the duty of the church authentically to explain the point of dispute. The state must submit to this judgment.”-Ib., 223. Quoted in “Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, pp. 338, 339. London: Cassell and Company, 1911.SBBS 271.6

Jesuits, A Famous Maxim of.—The oft-quoted maxim, “The end sarrctifies the means,” does not occur in this abrupt form in the moral and theological manuals of the order. But its signification, i. e., that means in themselves bad and blameable are “sanctified,” i. e., are permissible on account of the good ends which it is hoped to attain through them, is one of the fundamental doctrines of Jesuit morals and ethics.SBBS 271.7

It is well known that many violent disputes have raged about this maxim. The Jesuit Roh offered a reward of 1,000 florins to any one who could point it out in the moral and theological writings of the order. The matter was not decided. In April, 1903, the Centre deputy, Chaplain Dasbach, repeated Roh’s challenge at a public meeting at Rixdorf, increasing the sum to 2,000 florins. I took Herr Dasbach at his word, published the proofs from Jesuit writings, which appeared to me convincing, in the magazine Deutschland, edited by myself, and called on the challenger, Herr Dasbach, to pay the 2,000 florins. He refused. I sued him for payment at the county court at Treves (Dasbach’s place of residence). The court pronounced that the matter was a betting transaction, and that the money could not be recovered at law. On appealing against this to the high court of appeal at Cologne, my case was dismissed on March 30, 1905, on the ground that the passages brought forward from Jesuit authors did not contain the sentence, “The end sanctifies the means,” either formally or materially. My counsel advised against applying for a revision at the supreme court of the empire, as the facts of the case would not be discussed there, only technical errors in the previous judgments.—“Fourteen Years a Jesuit,” Count Paul von Hoensbroech, Vol. II, p. 320. London: Vassell and Company, 1911.SBBS 271.8

Jesuits, Martyrs Compared with.—Yet, if we compare all the heroic sufferings of the Jesuits in the cause of obedience with those of the countless martyrs who have died for religious liberty in the dungeons of the Holy Office, on the battlefields of Holland, or in the endless cruelties of Romish intolerance, they seem faint and insignificant; and where obedience has produced one martyr, a thousand have fallen to attest their belief in Christianity.—“Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence, p. 105. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876.SBBS 272.1

Jesuits, Roman Catholic Criticism of.—As we have already had occasion to see, the Society of Jesus had done great service in the cause of the church. In the course of time, however, when nearly all the schools of the world had come under its control, and when its members were everywhere in demand as confessors and confidential advisers to the princes, it attained a position not devoid of danger. The society soon acquired a strong spirit of independence, which it did not hesitate to display even toward the Holy See. In effect, the determination with which the Jesuits adhered to their rites and usages in Malabar and China, in spite of their condemnation by Rome, can only with difficulty be reconciled with their vow of obedience, even though all allowances be made for their being convinced of the necessity of their methods. Their conduct was repeatedly made a subject of complaint by Benedict XIV. In his bull Immensa Pastorum (Dec. 20, 1741), he was compelled to recall to the Jesuits and to other orders the precepts of Christian charity, and to forbid them to hinder the progress of the gospel among the Indians by trading in slaves, and other inhuman practices. In this matter he was indeed obeyed, but in other directions the proceedings of the society remained open to criticism.—“Manual of Church History,” Dr. F. X. Funk, Roman Catholic Professor of Theology in the University of Tubingen, p. 173.*SBBS 272.2

Note.—This work was published in London in 1910, having the imprimatur of Archbishop Bourne’s vicar-general, dated May 16, 1910.—Eds.SBBS 272.3

Jesuits, Later History and Suppression of.—The growing secularization of the society and its need of vast resources for the maintenance and extension of its world-wide work and the diminution of freewill offerings that had sufficed in the times when religious enthusiasm was at its height, led the society to engage in great speculative business enterprises, those conducted in Paraguay and Martinique resulting in disaster to many innocent investors (1753 onward), and brought upon the society much reproach in Portugal and France. In Portugal the Marquis of Pombal, one of the foremost statesmen of his time, became convinced that the liberation of the country from ecclesiastical rule, in which Jesuits had long been predominant, required the exclusion of the latter. An insurrection in Portuguese Paraguay by the natives furnished an occasion to Pombal for denouncing the Jesuits to the king and for demanding papal prohibition of their commercial undertakings. The papal prohibition was issued in 1758 and priestly privileges were withdrawn from Jesuits in Portugal. An attempt upon the life of the king (Sept. 3, 1758) was attributed to Jesuit influence, and led to a decree for the expulsion of the society and the confiscation of its property (Sept. 3, 1759). The Pope tried in vain to protect them, and his nuncio was driven from the country. Malgrida, a Jesuit, was burned at the stake in 1761. Speculations by Jesuits in Martinique, in which vast sums of money were lost by French citizens, led to a public investigation of the methods of the society, and on April 16, 1761, the Parliament of Paris decreed a suppression of Jesuit establishments in France, and on May 8 declared the entire order responsible for the debts of the principal promoter of the collapsed enterprise. Other parliaments followed that of Paris. King, Pope, and many bishops protested in vain. Eighty of their colleges were closed in April, 1762. Their constitution was denounced as godless, sacrilegious, and treasonable, and the vows taken by Jesuits were declared to be null and void. On Nov. 26, 1764, the king agreed to a decree of expulsion. In Spain 6,000 Jesuits were suddenly arrested at night and conveyed to papal territory (Sept. 2-3, 1768). Refused admission by the Pope, they took refuge in Corsica. A similar seizure and transportation of 3,000 had occurred at Naples (Nov. 3-4, 1767). Parma dealt with them similarly (Feb. 7, 1768), and soon afterward they were expelled from Malta by the Knights of St. John.SBBS 272.4

The Bourbon princes urged Clement XIII to abolish the society. He refused, and when he died (Feb. 2, 1769) there was much intriguing among friends and enemies of the Jesuits in seeking to secure the election of a pope that would protect or abolish the society. Cardinal Ganganelli was elected, and it is highly probable that he had bargained with the Bourbons for the destruction of the Jesuits. From the beginning of his pontificate powerful pressure was brought to bear upon him by Spain, France, and Portugal for the abolition of the order. He gave promises of early action, but long hesitated to strike the fatal blow. He began by subjecting the Jesuit colleges in and around Rome to investigation. These were promptly suppressed and their inmates banished. Maria Theresa of Austria, who had been greatly devoted to the Jesuits, now regretfully abandoned them and joined with the Bourbons in demanding the abolition of the society by the Pope. This combined pressure of the chief Catholic powers was more than the Pope could withstand (“Coactus feci,” he is reported to have afterward said). On July 21, 1773, he signed the brief Dominus ac Redemptor noster, which abolished the society, and on August 16 the general and his chief assistants were imprisoned and all their property in Rome and the states of the church confiscated (Eng. transl. of this brief is most easily accessible in Nicolini, “History of the Jesuits,” pp. 387-406, London, 1893). The brief recites at length the charges of immoral teaching and intolerable meddlesomeness in matters of church and state, of the abuse of the unlimited privileges that the society has enjoyed, and virtually admits that it has become totally depraved and a universal nuisance. To restore peace to Christendom its abolition is declared to be necessary. A papal coin was struck the same year in commemoration of the event, with Christ sitting in judgment and saying to the Jesuit fathers arraigned on his left, “Depart from me, all of you, I never knew you.”-The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. VI, art. “Jesuits,” pp. 147, 148.SBBS 273.1

Jesuits, Decree of French Parliament of 1762 Concerning.—The court has ordered that the passages extracted from the books of 147 Jesuit authors having been verified, a collated copy shall be presented to the king, to enable him to know the perversity of the doctrine maintained by the so-called Jesuits from the foundation of the society up to the present moment, with the approbation of the theologians, the permission of the superiors and generals, and the applause of other members of the aforesaid society: a doctrine authorizing theft, lying, perjury, impurity, all passions and all crimes, teaching homicide, parricide, and regicide, overthrowing religion in order to substitute superstitions for it, while favoring magic, blasphemy, irreligion, and idolatry; and the said sovereign lord shall be most humbly entreated to consider the results of such pernicious teaching combined with the choice and uniformity of the opinions of the aforesaid society. Done in Parliament, the 5th March, 1762.—“Our Brief Against Rome,” Rev. Charles Stuteville Isaacson, M. A., Appendix C, p. 269. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1905.SBBS 274.1

Jesuits, Extracts from the Brief of Clement XIV Suppressing the.—We have seen, in the grief of our heart, that neither these remedies [applied by former popes], nor an infinity of others, since employed, have produced their due effect, or silenced the accusations and complaints against the said society [e. g., Jesuit]. Our other predecessors, Urban VII, Clement IX, X, XI, and XII, and Alexander VII and VIII, Innocent X, XII, and XIII, and Benedict XIV, employed, without effect, all their efforts to the same purpose. In vain did they endeavor, by salutary constitutions, to restore peace to the church; as well with respect to secular affairs, with which the company ought not to have interfered, as with regard to the missions.... After a mature deliberation, we do, out of our certain knowledge, and the fulness of our apostolical power, suppress and abolish the said company: we deprive it of all activity whatever, of its houses, schools, colleges, hospitals, lands, and, in short, every other place whatsoever, in whatever kingdom or province they may be situated; we abrogate and annul its statutes, rules, customs, decrees, and constitutions, even though confirmed by oath, and approved by the Holy See or otherwise; in like manner we annul all and every its privileges, indults, general or particular, the tenor whereof is, and is taken to be, as fully and as amply expressed in the present brief as if the same were inserted word for word, in whatever clauses, form, or decree, or under whatever sanction their privileges may have been conceived. We declare all, and all kind of authority, the general, the provincials, the visitors, and other superiors of the said society, to be forever annulled and extinguished, of what nature soever the said authority may be, as well in things spiritual as temporal.—“History of the Jesuits,” G. B. Nicolini, pp. 394-398. London: George Bell & Sons, 1884.SBBS 274.2

Jesuits, Roman Catholic View of Their Suppression.—In the Brief of Suppression the most striking feature is the long list of allegations against the society, with no mention of what is favorable; the tone of the brief is very adverse. On the other hand, the charges are recited categorically; they are not definitely stated to have been proved. The object is to represent the order as having occasioned perpetual strife, contradiction, and trouble. For the sake of peace the society must be suppressed.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, p. 99.SBBS 274.3

Jesuits, Restoration of.—The execution of the Brief of Suppression having been largely left to the local bishops, there was room for a good deal of variety in the treatment which the Jesuits might receive in different places. In Austria and Germany they were generally allowed to teach (but with secular clergy as superiors); ... but in Russia, and until 1780 in Prussia, the Empress Catherine and King Frederick II desired to maintain the society as a teaching body. They forbade the local bishops to promulgate the brief until their placet was obtained. Bishop Massalski in White Russia, 19 September, 1773, therefore ordered the Jesuit superiors to continue to exercise jurisdiction till further notice....SBBS 275.1

The Restored Society.-Pius VII had resolved to restore the society during his captivity in France; and after his return to Rome did so with little delay, 7 August, 1814, by the bull Sollicitudo omnium ecclesiarum, and therewith the general in Russia, Thaddaus Brzozowski, acquired universal jurisdiction.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. XIV, pp. 99, 100.SBBS 275.2

Jesuits, Present Activity of.—A striking parallel is found in the secret society of the Jesuits-that indefatigable order which undoubtedly saved the Romish Church from destruction at the period of the Reformation, and has ever since proved the chief stay and strength of the system of disguised paganism which we have been endeavoring to expose. But energetic as its members showed themselves to be in times that are past, it is probable that they were never more so than in the last few years. To their exertions we may refer the fact that the tide of popery is again setting in upon the Protestant countries of England, America, and Germany.—“Rome: Pagan and Papal,” Mourant Brock, M. A., p. 266. London: Hodder and Stoughton, 1883.SBBS 275.3

Jesuits, Work of, Against Protestantism.—The movement which began at Trent and was consummated in our own day, and which made unity of organization and absolute submission to the Pope the supreme tests, was chiefly the work of the Jesuits, who emerged on the scene as the great dominating force before the second assembling of the council in 1551, and whose influence was supreme throughout its later doings. Their policy was not merely to put an end to the idea of reunion through reform, but to silence the cry for compromise. “Cease your discussions and crush Protestantism,” was their motto; and for a time their success was extraordinary. They secured the removal of the grosser abuses which weakened Rome; they carried Romish doctrines among the heathen in an era when there were no corresponding Protestant missions; and they drove back the Reformation movement to the limits which are still its practical boundaries.—“The Arrested Reformation,” Rev. William Muir, M. A., B. D., B. L., p. 155. London: Morgan and Scott, 1912.SBBS 275.4

Jesuits.—See Councils, Vatican, 124.SBBS 275.5

Jewish League, Its Meaning and Date.—For the purpose of restoring him [Alcimus] a Syrian army once more invaded Judea under Nicanor (b. c. 160) [the Britannica, 11th edition, art. “Israel,” says b. c. 161], but first at Kapharsalama and afterwards at Bethhoron was defeated by Judas [Maccabeus] and almost annihilated in the subsequent flight, Nicanor himself being among the slain (13th Adar-Nicanor’s day). Judas was now at the acme of his prosperity; about this time he concluded his (profitless) treaty [or league] with the Romans.—Encyclopedia Britannica, 20th Century edition, Vol. XIII, art. “Israel,” p. 422.SBBS 275.6

Jewish League, The Decree.—Hearing of the power of the Romans, and that they had conquered in war Galatia, and Iberia, and Carthage, and Libya; and that, besides these, they had subdued Greece, and their kings, Perseus, and Philip, and Antiochus the Great also; he [Judas Maccabeus] resolved to enter into a league of friendship with them. He therefore sent to Rome some of his friends, Eupolemus the son of John, and Jason the son of Eleazer, and by them desired the Romans that they would assist them, and be their friends, and would write to Demetrius that he would not fight against the Jews. So the senate received the ambassadors that came from Judas to Rome, and discoursed with them about the errand on which they came, and then granted them a league of assistance [b. c. 161]. They also made a decree concerning it, and sent a copy of it into Judea. It was also laid up in the capitol, and engraven in brass. The decree itself was this: “The decree of the senate concerning a league of assistance and friendship with the nation of the Jews. It shall not be lawful for any that are subject to the Romans to make war with the nation of the Jews, nor to assist those that do so, either by sending them corn, or ships, or money; and if any attack be made upon the Jews, the Romans shall assist them, as far as they are able; and again, if any attack be made upon the Romans, the Jews shall assist them. And if the Jews have a mind to add to, or to take away anything from, this league of assistance, that shall be done with the common consent of the Romans. And whatsoever addition shall thus be made, it shall be of force.”-“Antiquities of the Jews,” Josephus, book 12, chap. 10, sec. 6.SBBS 276.1

Jews,—See Advent, First, 5, 6, Second, 17; Apostasy, 36; Azazel, 44; Babylon, 61; Calendar, 95, 96, 97; Canon, 98, 99; Daniel, 30; Easter, 147; Genealogy, 183; Jerusalem; Law, Ceremonial; Priesthood, 392; Religious Liberty, 419; Rome, 446; Sabbath, 466.SBBS 276.2

John XXIII.—See Papacy, 342.SBBS 276.3

Justification, Contrasting Views of.—The most striking differences between the Reformation and the medieval conception of justification are:SBBS 276.4

1. The Reformation thought always looks at the comparative imperfection of the works of believers, while admitting that they are good works; the medieval theologian, even when bidding men disregard the intrinsic value of their good works, always looks at the relative perfection of these works.SBBS 276.5

2. The Reformer had a much more concrete idea of God’s grace-it was something special, particular, unique-because he invariably regarded the really good works which men can do from their relative imperfection; the medieval theologian looked at the relative perfection of good works, and so could represent them as something congruous to the grace of God which was not sharply distinguished from them.SBBS 276.6

3. These views led Luther and the Reformers to represent faith as not merely the receptive organ for the reception and appropriation of justification through Christ, but, and in addition, as the active instrument in all Christian life and work-faith is our life; while the medieval theologians never attained this view of faith.SBBS 276.7

4. The Reformer believes that the act of faith in his justification through Christ is the basis of the believer’s assurance of his pardon and salvation in spite of the painful and abiding sense of sin; while the medieval theologian held that the divine sentence of acquittal which restored a sinner to a state of grace resulted from the joint action of the priest and the penitent in the sacrament of penance, and had to be repeated intermittently.—“A History of the Reformation,” Thomas M. Lindsay, M. A., D. D., p. 452. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1906.SBBS 277.1

Justification, Roman Canons on.—Canon IX. If any one saith that by faith alone the impious is justified; in such wise as to mean that nothing else is required to co-operate in order to the obtaining the grace of justification, and that it is not in any way necessary that he be prepared and disposed by the movement of his own will; let him be anathema.SBBS 277.2

Canon X. If any one saith that men are just without the justice of Christ, whereby he merited for us to be justified; or that it is by that justice itself that they are formally just; let him be anathema.SBBS 277.3

Canon XI. If any one saith that men are justified, either by the sole imputation of the justice of Christ or by the sole remission of sins, to the exclusion of the grace and the charity which is poured forth in their hearts by the Holy Ghost and is inherent in them; or even that the grace, whereby we are justified, is only the favor of God; let him be anathema.SBBS 277.4

Canon XII. If any one saith that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy which remits sin for Christ’s sake; or that this confidence alone is that whereby we are justified; let him be anathema.SBBS 277.5

Canon XIII. If any one saith that it is necessary for every one, for the obtaining the remission of sins, that he believe for certain, and without any wavering arising from his own infirmity and indisposition, that his sins are forgiven him; let him be anathema.SBBS 277.6

Canon XIV. If any one saith that man is truly absolved from his sins and justified, because that he assuredly believed himself absolved and justified; or that no one is truly justified but he who believes himself justified; and that, by this faith alone, absolution and justification are effected; let him be anathema.—“Dogmatic Canons and Decrees,” pp. 51, 52. New York: Devin-Adair Company, 1912.SBBS 277.7

Justification, Roman Catholic View of Protestant Teaching Conoebning.—As in revolutions the leaders try to gain the people over by the bait of promised independence, so at the time of the so-called Reformation-which was a revolution against church authority and order in religion-it seems that it was the aim of the Reformers to decoy the people under the pretext of making them independent of the priests, in whose hands our Saviour has placed the administering of the seven sacraments of pardon and of grace.SBBS 277.8

They began, therefore, by discarding five of these sacraments, including the sacrament of order, in which priests are ordained, and the sacrament of penance, in which the forgiveness of sins is granted to the penitent, by virtue of those words of Christ: “Whose sins you shall forgive, they are forgiven them; and whose sins you shall retain, they are retained.” St. John 20:23.SBBS 277.9

They then reduced, as it appears, to a mere matter of form, the two sacraments they professed to retain, namely, holy baptism and the holy eucharist. To make up for this rejection, and enable each individual to prescribe for himself, and procure by himself the pardon of sins and divine grace, independently of the priests and of the sacraments, they invented an exclusive means, never known in the church of God, and still rejected by all the Eastern churches and by the Roman Catholics throughout the world, by which the followers of Luther ventured to declare that each individual can secure pardon and justification for himself independently of priests and sacraments.SBBS 277.10

They have framed a new dogma, not to be found in any of the creeds, or in the canons of any general council; I mean, the new dogma of Justification by Faith alone, or by Faith only....SBBS 278.1

By adding the word “alone,” Protestants profess to exclude all exterior, ceremonial, pious, or charitable works, works of obedience or of penance, and good moral acts whatever, as means of apprehending justification, or as conditions to obtain it. Protestants by that word “alone” mean also to exclude the sacraments of baptism and penance as means of apprehending or possessing themselves of justification, which they maintain is only apprehended by faith....SBBS 278.2

Indeed, some of them go so far as to consider these interior good acts as well as other exterior good deeds, rather hindrances than dispositions to justification.SBBS 278.3

To do these acts with the view of being justified, is, they say, like giving a penny to the queen to obtain from her a royal gift. Come as you are, they add; you cannot be too bad for Jesus. Through faith alone in his promise, they assert, you can and should accept Christ’s merits, seize Christ’s redemption and his justice; appropriate Christ to yourself, believe that Jesus is with you, is yours, that he pardons your sins, and all this without any preparation and without any doing on your part; in fact, that however deficient you may be in all other dispositions which Catholics require, and however loaded with sins, if you only trust in Jesus that he will forgive your sins and save you, you are by that trust alone forgiven, personally redeemed, justified, and placed in a state of salvation.—“Catholic Belief,” Rev. Joseph Faa di Bruno, D. D. (R. C.), pp. 365-367. New York: Benziger Brothers.SBBS 278.4

Justification.—Conferred in Baptism, According to the Roman View.—The adult is called to justification by a preventing grace, which is for him, as it were, the principle of salvation. This grace, which may be resisted and absolutely rejected, draws the will on to prepare for reconciliation in a fitting manner, and always with freedom. The acts which predispose him for reconciliation, and which grace assists him to make, are, first, acts of faith: he hears the preaching of the gospel, he believes the truth of the revelation, and God’s faithfulness to his promises; he believes, especially, that God justifies the wicked by his grace, the fruit of redemption. But in hearing the sacred law promulgated he perceives that he is a sinner; and therefore fears the justice of God provoked by his iniquities; after he has been cast down by this salutary shock, a feeling of confidence in the infinite mercy of his Creator presents itself and raises him up. He hopes that God, in consideration of the merits of Jesus Christ, will pardon him; and animated by such hope, he begins to love this God, the unfailing source of all justice; this love leads him to detest his sin, to repent of it, to repair it as far as may be, and makes him resolve to receive baptism, and to observe the divine commandments. When the soul has these dispositions, it receives from the Holy Spirit in baptism, together with the remission of all its sins, the grace which makes it just; and at the same time it is incorporated into Jesus Christ, and united to that divine Head by the sacred ties of faith, hope, and charity.—“Catholic Doctrine as Defined by the Council of Trent,” Rev. A. Nampon, S. J. (R. C.), p. 276. Philadelphia: Peter F. Cunningham, 1869.SBBS 278.5

Justification, the Confirmation of Freedom.—Justification by faith alone is not the denial, it is rather the confirmation, of the highest freedom, for it involves this, that the man in matters relating to his eternal salvation is independent of any sort of priestly mediation, of any sort of human pronouncement, of any sort of legal tradition, that he stands alone before the face of God, and that it is only in his own heart that the decision is made with regard to him how far he belongs to the truly catholic, the ideal church.—“Handbook to the Controversy with Rome,” Karl von Hase, Vol. II, p. 37. London: The Religious Tract Society, 1909.SBBS 279.1

Justification, The Council of Trent on.—The Council of Trent says: “If any man shall declare that men are justified without the righteousness of Christ, through which he has obtained merit for us, or that through that righteousness itself they are formally justified; let him be accursed.” “If any man shall say that justifying faith is nothing else but confidence in the divine mercy, forgiving sins for Christ’s sake; or that this confidence is the only thing by which we are justified; let him be accursed.”SBBS 279.2

The Council of Trent boastfully declared that it was “lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit,” at the beginning of every important decree; meaning that its decisions were all prompted by Him who moved holy men of old to write the Scriptures. Examine these two canons in the light of the Spirit’s revelations. The first curses those who say that men are formally justified through Christ’s righteousness; the second curses those who say that confidence in the divine mercy forgiving sins for Christ’s sake is the only thing by which we are justified. Paul comes under this curse, for he says (Catholic version, Romans 3:28): “For we account a man to be justified by faith without the works of the law.” And if inspired Paul arrived at such a conclusion, we may safely sit down beside him and let the Council of Trent, lawfully assembled in the Holy Spirit, curse him and us....SBBS 279.3

The decree on justification has sixteen chapters and thirty-three canons; it is very elaborate, and contains some truth and much pernicious error. Take it altogether, it is one of the most self-contradictory, gospel-denying, and detestable efforts which one could well imagine.—“The Papal System,” William Cathcart, D. D., pp. 261, 262. Philadelphia: American Baptist Publication Society.SBBS 279.4

Justinian.—See Councils, 119; Heretics, 209; Inquisition, 251; Papal Supremacy, 356-359; Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 445, 446.SBBS 279.5