# Der Lutheraner_St. Louis Missouri_1854 01 17_S82
# AI translation — CHI Digital Archive (demonstration)

82

and still sacrifice themselves, while all protests against them on the part of the other Jesuits are only jugglery and sham for the uninitiated, for the multitude; for with these fellows the proverbs hold: Intus ut libet, foris ut moris est— Loquimur cum vulgo, sentimus cum doctis, that is, Within as it pleases, without as is the custom — We speak with the common rabble, but we think with the initiated.

Before we now add the promised conclusion, we cannot refrain from calling our readers' attention further to this, that, if anything, it is the history of the Jesuits that proves incontrovertibly that Popedom is really the Ecclesia malignantium, the Church of the ungodly or congregation of the wicked (Ps. 26, 5.), the Synagoga Satanae, the synagogue of Satan (Rev. 2, 9.), the Meretrix magna, the Babylon magna, the Mater fornicationum et abominationum terrae, the great whore, Babylon the great, the mother of harlots and abominations of the earth (Rev. 17, 1. 5.), in short, the church of Antichrist, of whom it is written that he is “the man of sin, the son of perdition. Who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, or that is worshipped; so that he as God sitteth in the temple of God, shewing himself that he is God . . . Even him, whose coming is after the working of Satan with all power and signs and lying wonders, and with all deceivableness of unrighteousness in them that perish; because they received not the love of the truth, that they might be saved.” [2 Thess. 2, 3. 4. 9. 10.] It is indeed true, a Pope himself has abolished the Jesuit order, but Popes themselves it was also who confirmed this school of Satan, distinguished it with unheard-of privileges, many times praised the members of the Order as the most faithful members and defenders of the Church, solemnly approved and sealed its devilish Institutum, and canonized several companions of the Jesuits and made them patron saints; yes, a Pope it was also who in the year 1814 had the unexampled effrontery, in that bull which begins with the words “Sollicitudo omnium,” to restore, by virtue of his papal plenary power, the Jesuit order (abolished by his predecessor for all time to come, under threat of the great ban upon all renewers). In it, it is said first, among other things, of the former Jesuit Karnu in Russia, that he, with other secular priests, should be permitted “to come together into a society, that they might the more easily preach, teach, etc., after the manner of their Institutum.” Thereupon it is declared that this restoration is hereby “extended to the entire States of the Church and to all other states and countries.” Far from this restoration bull's making mention, even with one little word, of the crimes of the Jesuits named in the bull of suppression, Pope Pius VII, scarcely escaped from the claws of Napoleon, rather calls the Jesuits, without shame or scruple: “the experienced and courageous laborers who offer themselves to break the waves of the sea,” which now beat against the little ship of Peter. Not new, better Jesuits, then, were they whom Pope Pius VII took again into his pay, when he saw his seat of Satan (Rev. 2, 13.) shaken and tottering again, but the old Jesuits, with their old Institutum and all their old abominations, wickednesses, and devilish practices! How could it indeed go otherwise? Had not the Jesuit General Lorenz Ricci already answered, when it was proposed to reform the Jesuit order: “Sint, ut sunt, aut non sint,” that is, “Either let them be as they are, or they must cease to be.” What could they, moreover, have helped Pope Pius VII toward his ends, if he had wished to remake them according to God's Word? He could be served only by such Jesuits as, according to their old Institutum, are ready, when their superior commands it, to commit even a “mortal sin” with joy. Without, therefore, having the gift of prophecy, but only because he was initiated into the mystery of iniquity [2 Thess. 2, 7.], on which the Popedom rests, the third General of the Order of the Jesuits, Francis Borgia [whom Benedict XIII in the year 1724, on account of his services to the papal chair, placed among the saints,] already in the sixteenth century made the remarkable prediction: “Like lambs we have crept in, as wolves we rule, like dogs we shall be driven out, but like eagles we shall renew our youth.” — It is, further, a well-known historical fact that Popes themselves have publicly condemned the shameful moral principles. Innocent XI, among other things, in the year 1679 condemned no fewer than 65 doctrines of devils (1 Tim. 4, 1.), which, as he says in his bull, he had drawn from the writings of the Jesuit moralists, in particular of Azorius, Sanchez, Lessius, Laymann, Filliucius, Tamburini, and others (which we intend in due time to communicate to our readers). But what were all these condemnations other than a comedy? What were they other than a confession of the Popes, which, however truthful and however important for us it also is, was wrung from them only on the rack of circumstances? When in the Roman church ever a man arose who zealously stood for true living faith and true godliness of heart and against priestcraft and papal tyranny, he had always to recant at once, publicly and solemnly, or he was banished or had to burn: but where has a Pope ever demanded a recantation of the Jesuits, who taught that accursed morality which abolishes all morality? Which of them has he for that cause put under the ban? Which has he burned? Just when the devilish moralizing of the Jesuits stood in its highest bloom, the Popes in their bulls could scarcely exhaust themselves in praise of the same. The most licentious Jesuit moralists were the Popes' own confessors, cardinals, and dearest favorites. And when at last the unhappy Clement, for fear of losing, otherwise, the greatest realms and states that were subject to the papal chair, bit into the sour apple and abolished the Jesuit order, what happened then to the Jesuits, in spite of the dreadful crimes of which they were publicly accused by the Pope himself? Was a recantation demanded of them and a penance laid upon them, if they wished to be recognized and retained by the Roman Church again as good members? By no means! They rather gloried, as over a proof of the power and glory of the Roman Church, that the Jesuit rabble set in the pillory by the Pope himself nevertheless remained in the “holy Roman Church” and did not withdraw of its own accord. Yes, on the papal side it was brought about that the ex-Jesuits had to receive annuities even out of the proceeds of their confiscated estates. They were evidently regarded on the part of the papal chair as sacrifices which one had to bring to the “holy mother” for the preservation of whole lands and peoples. Even the successor of Clement XIV showed himself a friend of the Jesuits, and that Pius VII first dared to reinstate them publicly and solemnly in their old rights came about solely from this, that he first lived to see the fitting moment for it. Moreover, we must not forget at all that the Jesuit moral principles are by no means principles peculiar to the Jesuits alone in the Roman church. They have rather always been highly extolled by the most notable non-Jesuit Roman theologians, within and without the religious orders. Thus, to cite but one example, Dr. Augustinus Michel, formerly episcopal ecclesiastical councillor and professor of theology at Freising, writes in his “Refutation of the Expostulation and Protestation of Pasquier Quesnel,” published in German at Augsburg in 1721: “The Jesuits have set forth their lax moral teachings so far blamelessly, because they wished thereby to lighten and sweeten the yoke of Christ and of the Church.” (! p. 32.) But the non-Jesuits of the Roman church have not only taken the Jesuit morality under their protection in many ways, but have also just as often independently set forth and developed the same principles as doctrines of the whole Roman church. We reserve it, however, for other times to communicate still more testimonies of non-Jesuits from the Roman church for the Jesuit morality, and so to prove that Jesuitism is not a blemish, but the true bloom of Popedom and of this, therefore