deceive themselves that they may deceive others And as for the most part men have not spirit and invention enough for this they want some body to aide and furnish them with reasons to blinde and perswade themselves that they may with a good conscience do that which even their conscience it self teaches them they cannot do when they consult and hearken to it without preoccupations The Jesuits of all the persons of the world are most capable to do these good offices and sufficiently inclinable of themselves to pleasure the whole world It must needs be a very strange and extraordinary case in this matter if they find not expedients to resolve it to the content of him who consults with them There is no person of what condition soever he be who doth prudently make use of their advise who may not do all his affairs by deceit and yet not pass for all that for a cheat or unfaithful according to the maximes of their Divinity First of all if a Child be tempted to take something of his Father and Mothers goods secretly and that the fear of God or Man restrain him in any sort Escobar takes away this scruple from him and makes him see that he may do it with good conscience especially if he do any service to his Father as there is no child but is obliged to do and who doth not do it according to his condition when they are of age and in capacity to do their duties He proposes this question a Filius mercatoris patris bona administrat potest à patre salarium exigere quantum alicui extraneo deberet Siistud non possit à patre pretium impetrare potestne clam accipere Potest quidem ad justam aestimationem labor is industriae fuae computat is tamen in dicta aestimatione expensis quas pater in ipso fecit alendo Escobar tract 1. exam 10. n. 31. p. 163. A Merchant hath a Son whom he employs in the manage of his estate and who may by reason thereof demand of him as much for his salary as he would give unto a stranger See here the thesis supposed and upon which he founds the case If his Father will not give him that which he earns may he take it himself in secret He answers clearly that he may according to the proportion of his labour and his industry He permits him to estimate and rate his own labour and pains and pay himself with his own hands deducting onely out of his pretended wages what his Father hath laid out in his education and maintenance in such manner that this estimation depends upon his own judgement and will for that he dare not inquire of his Father how much he hath expended therein Bauny in his summe ch 10. 2. 4. p. 138. saith the same thing in these terms When Fathers for whom their children are imployed and employ themselves continually do not content them as where children being now grown up are employed by them in their Shops and labour in their Trades or in the field for their Fathers affairs are not obliged to do this for nothing they may in conscience exact so much as strangers receive of them And if it happen that through fear or other humane consideration they dare not take this liberty where there is need to demand a just recompense of their Fathers Leo num 81 aâ—deth that it is lawful for them by all sorts of reason deducting the charges their Fatâ—er hath been at in their education to take so much for their labour and industry as they would give to a stranger unless they intend to serve freely This answre is an Oracle and contains a mystery which it were not convenient to reveal to all the world saith my Author and to cover this mystery it was needfull saith he to pronounce it in Latin the last clauses are so in the Original that they might be tempted thereby who understand not that language and to oblige them to go and demand the knowledge and practice thereof from them that understand it 2. Lessius speaking of theft saith in favour of men and maid servants b Adverte furta esculentorum poculentorum quae committuntur à famulis ancill is etiamsi sensim perveniant ad notabilâ—m quantitatem non esse peccata mortalia si furentur ea ut ipsimet consumant Lessius de just jur lib. 2. c. 12. d. 8. n. 48. p. 118. Observe that theft which men and maid-servants commit in meats and drinks are not mortal sins though insensibly they amount unto a notable quantity if they steal them onely to eat and drink them themselves Escobar saith the same thing and takes it of him c Coalâ—scuntne furta minuta famulorum de rebus comestibilibus quae claudi non solent Minime si non vendenda sed comedenda abripent Escobal tract 1. â—xam 9. n. 25. p. 162. These petty thefts inquires he which servants make of things to eat and which are not wont to be locked up can they by accumulation become a great sin He answers No if they steal these things to eat and not to sell I will not stay to make reflections upon these petty thefts nor to reherse many other cases in which children may according to the Jesuits Divinity take the goods of their Fathers and Mothers and Servants those of their Master reserving that to be done in its proper place when I shall handle that command of God which forbids them and the duties of children and servants in particular I will onely here reherse another passage of Lessius which of it self is sufficient to authorize all sorts of theft which a child or a servant or any other sort of person may commit First of all he saith d Crediderim non esse peccatum mortale quando sciret vel bona fide putaret inferior eum esse eiga se Superioris affectum ut libenter esset concessurus si ipsum sciret tali re egere vel tale quid desiderare Tunc enim censetur habere ex voluntate Superioris saltem virtuali quae in affectu illo latet ..... Pari modo in furto non est peccatum mortiferum quando quis scit affectum Domini in se talem esse aut certe quando Dominus rem parvi aestimat aut ita in aliquem esse affectus ut nollet illum gravi obligatione teneri Lessius de just jur lib. 2. c. 41. d. 9. n. 79. p. 496. That he believes not that a religious person sins at least not mortally in taking something without asking it of his Superiour believing that he would have given it him if he had asked it or if he had known that he had need of it or onely that he deserved it From hence he draws this consequence and this maxime general in the matter of theft So it is no mortal sin to steal when he knows that his Master hath the very fame affection for him as the
without making use of a Perjurer this is to give great liberty or rather a great and dangerous temptation to all Agents Proctors and Sollicitors of Affairs The other Example is of a man who hath need of a Knight of the Post to reform a Contract and make it valid 8 Insuper potest deservire hoc juramentum confirmando contractui qui alià s infirmus erit Ibid. Moreover saith Sanchez this oath may be made use of to fortifie and make valid a Contract which without it would be null This is to make good penny-worths of conscience and our neighbours Souls to abandon it in this manner and to help him even to cast himself into perdition and the power of the Devil to secure a debt or to avoid the reproach or suspicion of being negligent in the conduct of an affair Escobar puts also this Question about an Oath 9 Num liceat per faisos Deos ad jurandum inducere Determinate inducere mortale crimen est petere vero juramentum ab eo qui per falsos Deos est juraurus per se malum non est Escob tr 1. exam 3. num 57. pag. 79. Whether it be lawful to induce one to swear by false gods The Answer is 10 That to engage him expresly thereto is a mortal sin but to demand an oath of him who will swear by false gods is no evil thing in it self He holds then that it is no evil in it self to take such an oath of an Infidel but it would be to demand it that it may be demanded but not expresly that we may sollicite an Infidel and engage him to swear provided we tell him not in express terms that he shall swear by his false gods though we be assured that he will not swear otherwise not acknowledging the true God Who sees not that this is to deride God and men to treat of matters of Religion and Salvation in a manner so unhandsom and gross that common sense only is sufficient to perceive the excess and baseness of it Escobar cites Filliutius upon this Point and he saith in effect the same thing with him and in the same terms 1 Petere juramentum ab co quem constat esse juraturum per falses Deos non est per se malum Filliutius tom 2. mor. qq tr 21. cap. 11. num 339. pag. 265. To demand saith he an oath of him who wâ—…are assured will swear by his false god is not a thing evil in it self This is also the Judgment of Sanchez who with his Brethren acknowledging that it is to contribute to an action of Idolatry or at the least to give occasion of it also with them that it may not be done without some reason for it But instead of what the others say generally that we ought to be engaged thereto by some necessity or utility he saith more that it cannot be so little as not be sufficient thereunto 2 Vel modica utilitas satis est ad excusandum ab hoc praecepto vitandae hujus occasionis Sanch. ut supra num 23. pag. 37. The least benefit or interest sufficeth saith he to dispense with the Precept which obliges us to avoid this occasion And it is in a manner upon this reason that he gives a solution to another difficulty which he propounds a little after 3 Secunda difficultas est quale peccatum fit exigere hoc juramentum ad Infideli parato ad jurandum per falsos Deos quando defuit necessitas aut utilitas excusans Ibid. num 22. Quam difficultatem in terminis non enodant Authores Quia generale charitatis preximl ac correctionis fraternae praeceptum obligat quemlibet sub mortâ—li ad vitandum lethale alterius peccatum quando commode absque suo damno id potest What sin is it to require an oath of an Infidel who is ready to swear by false gods without necessity or utility which might serve for excuse He answers 1. That none have declared nor explicated this Question in the terms he hath proposed it And after he acknowledges that some condemn this action of mortal sin because it is entirely against the Charity which we owe to our Neighbour which obliges us to hinder and much more not to tempt him to offend God mortally at least when we can do it conveniently and without any loss This so weighty a consideration startles him a little but it is not capable to make him to quit his opinion and yield unto the truth 4 Quamvis autem hoc probabilius esse credam quia ratio adducta fortiter urget at probabile est culpam solum venialem admitti Though I believe saith he that this opinion is more probable because the reason of these Authors which I now related is very urgent it is very probable that it is but a venial sin His reason is that since there needs so small a matter to be able without sin to prevail against the Precept forbidding us to demand an oath of an Infidel this is a sign that this Command is not so rigorous as to oblige under mortal sin though we should violate it expresly and without any particular reason 5 Quia ut vidimus n. 2. seq vel modica utilitas satis est ad excusandum ab hoc praecepto vitandae hujus occasionis at à praeceptis sub mortali obligantibus non tam levis causa excusare solet Ibid. Because saith he the least consideration of benefit sufficeth to exempt us from the Precept which obligeth to avoid this occasion and it is not ordinary for so slight an occasion to dispense with Commands which oblige under mortal sin This manner of arguing is very ordinary with the Jesuits to establish one Errour by another and to make use of one disorder which they have already introduced to make way for a second by drawing consequences from the one to the other Because they give liberty without sin to demand an oath of an Idolater when we have any small pretext for it they infer from thence that when we demand it without any reason it cannot be any great evil Thus it is that they take from themselves authority to dispense with the Commandments of God and abolish them as they please and that they make use of their own dispensations to give them liberty to violate them freely or at least without any great sin ARTICLE III. Of the Commandment of God HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER THis Commandment obligeth Children to their Fathers and Mothers in four principal things as the Catechism of the Council of Trent observes to love reverence obedience and assistance These are also the four Duties in which the Jesuits undertake to dispense with them 1. For what concerns love Dieastilius saith 1 Defiderare filium v. g. parentis mortem aut de illa gaudere ob haereditatem eldem provenientem non ita certum est esse licitum quamvis de
them in whose hands the Government now is By this discourse it is easie to conclude according to this Fathers Morals that Dr. Arnauld having proposed a Doctrine contrary to that which is in credit amongst the Jesuits deserved death and that he should do no other than a very laudable act who should draw the running knot about his neck to strangle him nay that it is necessary for them who have the Government in their hands to act thus and to make themselves the instruments of the passions and interests of these Fathers It is an incredible thing that a Priest a Monk and a Christian durst speak in this sort and durst rise up in a manner so cruel and shameful against a Priest and Sorbonne Doctor But it is more incredible that he would extend this fury as he makes shew of against so many Bishops and Doctors who approved his Book of frequent Communion and generally against all those who followed and esteemed the opinions of this Book that is to say against an infinity of learned and pious persons of all conditions It must be avowed that those who have allowed Murders who have given liberty to dispatch enemies by killing them were never transported to so great excess and that there are few men who have in their whole lives committed so great and abominable homicides as this Father so good and gentle hath a will to do with his own hand I speak not here though this seems to be its place of that detestable Doctrine which teaches Subjects to kill their Kings under pretence of their being Tyrants women great with child to cause the fruit in their wombs to perish when they cannot be delivered thereof without endangering their lives young Maidens defloured to expose their children to save their credit which is the Jesuits Doctrine I shall represent all these things more conveniently when I shall come to speak in particular of the Duties of every person according to his condition I will only observe here that if the Murder which is committed in all these cases and in all others which we have formerly related and extracted out of the Jesuits Books be not against the Commandment of God which forbids to kill as the Jesuits maintain it will not be easie to imagine on what occasion one may possibly break that Commandment or make himself criminal in the violation thereof if he may kill an enemy a slanderer a thief an invader an informer in false crimes and even in true ones but secret and which is yet more an innocent person and from whom he never received any displeasure an Infant a Prince a King all sorts of Superiors without excepting Fathers and Mothers If he may challenge into the field assassinate publickly kill by surprise or upon advantage cause to dye secretly by poyson or otherwise for the preservation of his life honour or goods and even for the least thing in the world as for an Apple when he believes himself obliged in honour not to let him carry it away who hath taken it I say if one may kill or cause to be killed in all these cases without punishment or sin as the Jesuits teach publickly it will necessarily follow that according to their Maxims for a man to make himself criminal against the Commandment which forbids Murder he must kill in a frolick and without any true or apparent cause Which cannot be suitable to any but Devils and those that have a diabolick malice ARTICLE V. Of Vncleanness which the Jesuits allow against the Command of God and natural Reason THe Jesuits allow almost every thing in this matter excepting the last act of this sin and it would be even hard to justifie according to their Maxims and Reasons that they condemn it at all in good earnest since they approve as we shall see presently and discharge from all crime all the ways and means that conduce to that end as lewd company impudent discourses kisses looks dishonest thoughts pollution it self which is in some sort the accomplishment of fleshly lust I know not whether we may not fear after what Father Tambourin hath written lest the Jesuits should at length affirm that Fornication may be lawful See here his words 1 Fornicationem esse peccatum mortale contrariuni afferete esse haereticum decretum est in Clement Ad nostram De haereticis Sed an sit solum prohibita jure positivo an etiam jure natureli atque adeo ex se sit intrinsece mala quaeritur à Doctoribus Et Durandus quidem Mardnus de Magistris Caramuel aliique putant esse solum ex jure positivo Verum communis omnium fere Doctorum sententia docet esse de lege naturali Mihi vero duo sunt certs Primo hanc communem esse veram sententiam Secundo data hac veritate dicendum à nobis esse dari rationem naturalem id certo probantem sed ingenue fateri nos debere eam à priori nondum clare esse compertam Ita solemus respondere cum de coeli quibusdam occultis cum de quadratura circuli aliisque similibus etiam in Philosophia disputamus ea nimitum certa esse certisque rationibus posse probari verum eas nondum adhuc fuisse manifeste ab ullo proposi as Dixi à priori nam à posteriori satis manifeste probatur praesertim ex eo quod si non esset jure naturali prohibita in aliquo tandem urgentissimo casu postet in ea dispensari quod nullo modo dici potest Tambourin lib. 7. decal cap. 1. sect 2. num 1. It is defined by the Clementine Ad nostram De Haereticis That Fornication is a mortal sin and that to say the contrary is an Heresie But whether it be forbidden by positive or natural Law and by consequent whether it be evil in it self is a question amongst the Doctors Durand Martinus de Magistris Caramuel and some few others believe that it is forbidden by positive Law only But the common opinion and of almost all the Doctors is that it is forbidden by the Law of Nature As for me I hold two things for certain First that the common opinion is true Secondly that this truth being presupposed we must say that there is some natural reason which proves it But I must ingenuously acknowledge that the Principle whence this Conclusion is drawn is not yet entirely discovered After this manner it is that we are accustomed to answer concerning some secrets of Heaven or the squaring of the Circle or other like questions when we dispute of them in Philosophy For we say that these things are certain and that they may be proved by demonstrative reasons but no man hath yet propounded them I say the Principle whence this Conclusion is drawn For if the consequences of it be considered it may be proved manifestly enough principally from this that if it were not forbidden by the Law of Nature it might be granted by dispensation in some
of Christianity should induce the Artificers to fast Escobar cited and confirmed by Tambourin 2 Propter candem tationem poterit quis ex Escob tr 1. exam 13. de jejunio cap. 3. opttarios coâ—ducere cum pacto ut non jejunent ne alias minus laborent Ibid. sect 6. num 4. permits those who hire Workmen to condition with them not to fast for fear they should work less Thus they would have us love God above all things and our neighbour as our selves by hindering him from rendering that obedience he ought and would yield unto the Church that he may be possibly a little better served and gain some small matter in the days work of an Artificer in a time of Alms and Charity The Monks and Clergy-men themselves may find reasons in these grave Divines to exempt them from Fasting For 1. They who work with their hands or who travel abroad about their affairs may enjoy the priviledge which Bauny hath given Workmen Artificers Counsellors and Attorneys Those who are employed in Study Confessions Missions Preaching should not be used with less favour than Advocates and Students Those who climb the Pulpit saith Bauny also pag. 263. every day in Lent are not obliged to fast because of the extreme toil they are obliged unto by their Profession And there is the same reason for Confessors and Missionaries who spend whole days almost in Confession and Professors who commonly ascend their Chairs twice a day and continue therein commonly longer than Preachers It is true he dispenses with Preachers under a condition which he hath taken from some Authors a little straiter laced than himself who restrain saith he pag. 263. this universal and general Proposition to those who have not strength enough to preach and fast both at once in which case they exempt them from the obligation to Fasting and not otherwise And he saith after the same thing of Readers and Confessors As for Readers and Confessors they must know that upon their strength depends the Judgment they ought to make of themselves and their obligation to fast For if without hurt to their bodies they can do it and withal read and perform their duty to their Penitents in their Confessions and afflict their flesh at the same time with abstinence practised in the Church on these holy days Fagundez and Diana hold it for an indubitable Maxime that they cannot be exempted without sin I know not how it comes to pass that they perceive not that the same reason they have in this manner to restrain the Dispensation for Fasting which they grant to Preachers and Confessors doth also oblige them in like manner to restrain that which they give unto Artificers Labourers Travellers and all other sorts of people For if they can fast in their exercise and labour by what reason should not they be obliged as well as Preachers who have strength enough to preach and fast both at once If Confessors and Readers ought to consider that upon their strength depends the Judgment they ought to make of themselves and their obligation to fast wherefore may we not say the same thing indifferently of all sorts of persons of what quality age or profession soever And what hinders but that we may declare unto them that if without prejudice to their bodies they can fast and do all that also which belongs unto their duty they are thereunto obliged and that it is an indubitable Maxime that they cannot dispense with themselves therein without sin Are they less Children of the Church than others and are they less obliged to obey their Mother and to employ themselves with all their power to give testimony of their good affection towards her which cannot be good if it incline not to do that which it hath power to do Father Bauny should remember the Doctrine of S. Antonin and others whom he quotes upon the same subject pag. 261. who speaking of the age at which we are obliged to fast hold saith he that herein we ought to have regard to every ones strength and complexion and to the proportion of their greatness and littleness for judging of the obligation of this Precept Some Rules may well be established to judge who are obliged to fast but there is nothing more certain nor more reasonable than to say that this ought to be regulated by the strength of every one particularly For if we can fast without any notable inconvenience what pretence can we have to exempt our self from it We dispense with them who according to the opinion of the Casuists themselves are of age to fast and who are not engaged in any profession nor exercise which might excuse them from it when they have not strength for it Wherefore then do they not oblige those to fast who are strong enough and who can do it without prejudice to their bodies though they are in some toilsom Trade or are not yet of the age which might oblige them thereto according to the Rules of these Casuists themselves Emanuel Sa alledges these same causes with Father Bauny to dispense with Fasting and he hath added others to them of which this is one 1 Causa reddendi conjugi dabitum vel non displicendi si haec jejunio impediuntur Sa verbo jejunium num 9. pag. 338. When Fasting hinders the Husband from performing the Marriage-duty towards the Wife or causes the Woman to be disliked by her Husband Filliutius saith the same thing in other words 2 Sequitur uxorem excusari à jejunio ratione conservandi amorem mariti erga ipsam Filliutius tom 1. tract 10. cap. 9. num 306. pag. 317. Hence it follows that a Woman is exempt from Fasting for the preservation of the love which her Husband bears towards her He repeats it again in another place where he saith 3 Tum vir non potens reddere debitum jejunando tum uxor non valens se reddere gratam viro ob maciem vel pallorem excusantur à jejunio Filliutim com 2. tract 27. cap. 6. num 119. pag. 289. That if a Husband cannot discharge his Marriage-duty fasting or a Woman become displeasing to her Husband through leanness or paleness they are both exempt from Fasting Heretofore Fasting dispensed with persons for Marriage-duties according to the order and custom commonly observed in the Church and at this day the duties of Marriage dispense with Fasting according to the Rules of these new Casuists They who say that the Wife for fear of displeasing her Husband and Husband his Wife causa non displicendi may be dispensed with in a Fast ordained by the express Command of God and the Church might very well by the same reason have excused Adam from sin or at least have said that he had not committed any great sin in eating only an Apple giving way thereto that he might not grieve his Wife causa non displicendi as many of the Ancients speak Tambourin hath not only taken care of