than once styled Pelagians or Semipelagians, because, as their adversaries said, they extolled human nature too much. The Jesuits could, consistently with their philosophical and theological doctrine, propose to their pupils the example of the natural virtues of the pagans.
On the other hand, they were most anxious to show the immense superiority of the religion of Christ to the philosophical systems of the ancients; they pointed out the helplessness of Greek philosophy to raise man above the baser elements of nature, and they showed into what an abyss of corruption the human race, left to itself, had fallen. All this instruction they could impart only if they left in the authors what was characteristic of their time and spirit, except such passages as on account of their obscenity were not fit to be read by youths. Here we have the meaning of the saying frequently used by Jesuit educators: "So interpret pagan authors as to make of them heralds of Christ." The religious and moral principles of the ancients were to be judged by the standard of Christian principles; what manifested the human spirit in its divine likeness, the testimony of the Anima naturaliter Christiana, as Tertullian says so beautifully, was approved and recommended; what exhibited that spirit of nature which is "the enemy of Christ," was condemned. If M. Compayré reprehends the Jesuits for doing this, they must be proud of such reproach; for it is a contumely suffered for defending the teaching of Christ against the doctrine of rank naturalism.
The Jesuits were never afraid of the ancient authors themselves. History has proved this. If they had been afraid, they would have introduced the Christian Latin and Greek authors instead of the pagan classics.
