# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 01 03_S74
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

74

the author (autrix)." (Expos. in prov. Sal. c. 9. n. 152.) Similarly writes Cornelius a Lapide: "Christ left his flesh in the Holy Supper, at the wish and perhaps the prayers of the blessed Virgin." (In Syr. c. 24. v. 19.) Yes, in this very passage Cornelius goes on to explain that Mary made this request for this reason: "That her flesh also might be united with the believers." The aforementioned Salazar likewise relates in the cited place, n. 144: "Our holy Father Ignatius" (the founder of the Order) "thought that Son and Mother were one flesh and blood, or that the Son was a part of the Mother; from this he concluded that in the Supper he receives not only Christ's but also Mary's flesh and blood, or at least a great part of Mary. For if Mother and Son are of one flesh and blood, it follows necessarily that whoever partakes of the Son's flesh and blood partakes also of the Mother's flesh. Over which thoughts the mind of the holy Ignatius felt an incredible voluptuousness (!)." — One sees well that the Jesuit faith in the Holy Supper is strengthened not so much by the faith that therein one enjoys the body and blood of Christ, the God-man, as rather by the insane imagination of being fed and given to drink with the body and blood of the holy Virgin. The good end, to promote the cult of Mary, sanctifies with them also the means, that one does not properly let Christ be the Founder and the Gift of the holy Sacrament, but Mary!

Vasquez: "If a child which is to be baptized is struggling with death and cannot be baptized in any other manner than by throwing it into a well and drowning it, then it is fitting that one should throw it down into the well with the intention of baptizing it." (Tom. II. in 3. part. Thom. disp. 145. c 3.) In the same sense Escobar expresses himself and adds: "Does one not truly perform baptism if one pours boiling water upon a child, partly with the intention of baptizing, partly with that of killing? Who will deny this, since the killing is surely never a hindrance to the washing?" (Universae th. mor. lib. II. sect. 2. probl. 19.)

Joh. de Alloza, of Lima in Peru, died 1666, writes: "In case of necessity baptism is to be administered with doubtful matter, such as rose-water, urine, sweat." (Flores summar. seu alphabetum morale p. 30.)

Gregorius de Valentia, or Pope Clement VIII, called Doctor Doctorum (teacher above all teachers), died 1603, writes: "Everyone is bound to believe that, the opposite of which is in fact true, if a synod decreed that it belongs to the faith." (Tom. 3. disp 1. q. 2. p. 5.)

Cornelius a Lapide writes on the words of Paul: "It is better to marry than to burn," the following: "For those who have taken the vow of chastity" (so he calls the vow not to marry), "both men and women, it is better that they burn in their desires and live in whoredom than that they marry again." (Ad 1 Cor. c. 7. v. 9.) The later self-devised vow thus goes beyond the vow made in baptism. One should rather commit whoredom against God's commandment than against the Pope's prohibition and the promise made to him, and enter into the holy estate of matrimony, instituted by God against whoredom and all uncleanness! Who does not here recognize in the Jesuits the true chamberlains of the Babylonian Whore?

Edmund Campianus of London was indeed beheaded in 1581 on account of his Jesuitical intrigues, but how little conviction was the cause of it appears from a letter which he wrote to the General of the Order and which was published in print at Trier in 1583; therein he says: "The condition of the Catholics in England is very grievous, nothing is left free to the minds, nothing untouched, neither speech nor religion; one must speak with others and confirm by an oath what the others confirm, even if one thinks quite differently in the heart, even if one feels in conscience the very opposite." [Loc. cit. p 86.] Poor man! First he sees himself compelled, in order to escape persecution, to act against his conscience, and finally even his last comfort forsakes him! Lying, hypocrisy, perjury. The Jesuit Paul Bombini has described the life and death of the unhappy man as a history of martyrs!

Steph. Bauni, perhaps the most shameless and filthiest moralist among the Jesuits, a Frenchman, died 1649, writes: "It is permitted to seek the occasion for something which is first of all and in itself sin, if it is done for the sake of a spiritual or bodily benefit, whether one's own or another's." (Tractat. de poenitentia q. 4. p. 94.) If the principle that the good end sanctifies the evil means is not thereby stated, then we in fact do not know how it could be stated more plainly.

Mart. Cresser, died at Bruges in West Flanders (the Netherlands) in 1635, writes: "No one can be certain with certainty of faith, without a special revelation, whether he has a good conscience, whether he now stands in grace, to say nothing of whether he will be saved. This is the opinion of all Catholics." (Lib. 2. de conscientia c. 13. p. m. 140.) — Surely a dreadful confession, which lets one look into the abyss of a Jesuitical heart. With their shameful morality it is indeed not possible for them ever to have a good conscience, assured of divine grace and divine good pleasure, and cheerful; but is it not terrible that they themselves write into the world as an article of faith that they could not know without an extraordinary revelation whether they have a good conscience? O you Lutherans! praise, praise God that you have a Gospel which purges your consciences from dead works and gives you that childlike spirit which cries: "Abba, Father!" Heb. 9, 14. Rom. 8, 15. While a Jesuit himself must confess that he belongs to those of whom it is prophesied among other things that they have a brand mark in their conscience." 1 Tim. 4, 1—3.

J. Pet. Maffejus, died 1603 at Tivoli, writes in his biography of the founder of the Jesuit Order, Ignatius of Lojola, concerning him as follows: "Ignatius possessed a wonderful craftiness for enticing mortals and leading them over from the slavery of Satan to obedience to Christ, and the same arts which the evil spirit employs for the ruin of souls he applied, as far as it was allowed and might be right, (?) to the salvation and welfare of men. The inclinations and dispositions of those with whom he dealt he sought out in a subtle manner, presented to the ambitious something splendid, to the covetous something profitable, to the voluptuous something agreeable, and so caught everyone, as one says, with his own hook and bait." (Vit. Ignatii lib. 3. c. 11.) — This remark of a faithful Jesuit about his Order's founder unlocks the secret how the Jesuits could be so bold as to write their exceedingly lax morality out into the public. This was to be the bait by which the most vicious men too were to be won for the Order. One was thus taught by the founder of the Order himself that if one has the good end of winning someone to the true religion (namely, to Popery) or of keeping him in it, even the worst means, namely the instigation of pride in the one, the nourishing of avarice in another, indulgence toward voluptuousness in a third, etc., may be used, yea, is sanctified by that good end. It is indeed dreadful that such men called themselves the "Societas Jesu" (Society of Jesus). They should rather have called themselves "Societas Satanae" (the Society of Satan). For while Jesus, in order to win and convert men, opposes their natural sinful inclinations and demands repentance for them, it is precisely Satan who takes hold of these sinful inclinations and uses them to win men for his devil's religion. With right one said in the last century, instead of Jesuiter—Jesuwider.—

After this and after all that we have so far communicated about the Jesuits, let the reader now judge what is to be thought of the local so-called Catholic newspaper writers, especially of Mr. Oertel, who in his "Catholic Church Gazette" of April 7 of last year writes: "I also gladly let myself be called a ""henchman,"" a ""wholly subordinate"" henchman of the Jesuits." —Truly, this poor man could not have confessed more plainly how deeply he has sunk since he forsook the truth!