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
contained in the rest he saith on the contrary that other Precepts are contained in this of love and depend on it He saith not that to love God is to serve him and do what he commands in any sort though it be without love he testifies rather that to love him with all our heart is to serve him and fulfil all his Commandments because the desire to discharge our duty which is contained in love supplies the place of all outward services which we cannot but would perform if we were able The Jesuits on the contrary teach that the Command to love God depends on is comprised in and confounded with the rest They say that to love God so much as we are or can be obliged by God himself is only to obey him in his other Commands though it be done without love That it is sufficient love of God to do nothing against him That to discharge our duty and what the Holy Scripture ordains in this point it suffices not to hate him As to what remains it is left to every ones liberty in particular to love him if he list and when he pleases so that no person in the whole course of his life can ever be obliged by the Precept of loving God above all things so that he should not sin at all against this Commandment who never put forth any inward act of love as Father Sirmond affirms in his Book of the Defence of Vertue tr 2. pag. 15. So that though indeed it would be a happiness to love God actually more than all things yet provided we offend him not he will not damn us pag. 16. And finally that it is in this manner that God might and ought command us his holy love pag. 24. These passages and many others besides which I have related in the former Chapter which treats of the Corrupting of Holy Scripture by the Jesuit-Authors are so clear that there needs no explication for understanding them They are so express and formal that without drawing any consequences from them which they do contain they that read or hear them only may easily perceive that they tend directly to abolish the Command of loving God Nevertheless because we have to do with a people who pretend to measure all by and attribute very much to their own reason I will also make use of it as they do and I will imploy their own against them or rather with them that I may the better detect their opinions upon this Point and make appear more clearly the false Principles whereupon they teach that there is no absolute Command to love God The first Discourse of Father Anthony Sirmond is this If there be a Command to love it obligeth to the observation thereof by its own Authority I mean it obligeth us to love God Now during the whole life of man there is neither time nor occasion wherein we are obliged to love God because as he saith pag. 16. God commanding us to love him contents himself as to the main that we should obey him in his other Commands and that because God hath not obliged us absolutely to testifie our affection to him otherwise than by yielding obedience unto him pag. 18. And because though we have no love for him effectually we cease not for all that to fulfil in rigour the command of love by doing good works so that we may see here the goodness of God He hath not commanded us so much to love him as not to hate him pag. 19. And because a God so loving and lovely commanding us to love him is finally content that we obey him pag. 28. And by consequent according to this Jesuit there is no absolute Commandment to love God since we are not bound to the observation of it by any Authority of its own as he pretends Another Argument taken also out of Father Sirmond is this Every Command carries some threatning with it to keep them in their duty to whom it is made and then some penalty or punishment against those who violate it Now the Commandment which God gave us to love him contains neither threat nor punishment at least no grievous one And by consequence we cannot say that this is a Commandment truly so called The first Proposition of this Syllogism is certain and evident of it self But beyond this you shall find also in Father Sirmond tr 2. pag. 20. 21. where he distinguishes of two sorts of commands the one of indulgence which requires something without strict obligation thereto the other of rigour which absolutely obligeth to what it hath ordained And to express himself more fully he adds afterwards that he commands as much as is possible but without threats without adding any penalty at least any grievous one to him who disobeys His command is all honey and sweetness or to speak more properly this is only an advice when he adds a penalty or commination of death then it is given in rigour The second Proposition is his also and more expresly than the former in the 14. page of the same Treatise where after he had said by way of inquiry If there be any command to love God it must oblige by its own Authority to its observation He puts this Question And some one may demand And to what is he obliged by his transgression Sins he mortally against this Precept who never exercises this inward act of love And he answers thereupon in these terms I dare neither affirm nor deny it of my self Indeed the answer he was about to give to this question was too impious to proceed from the Mouth or Pen of a Jesuit He had need to use or rather to abuse the Authority of some great Saint to cover it and to make him say by force and against his judgment what he durst not propound of himself S. Thomas saith he 22. q. 44. a. 6. seems to answer no and to be content for avoiding damnation that we do nothing otherwise against sacred love though we never in this life produce any formal act thereof S. Thomas speaks not of this in the place he quotes but speaks rather the contrary And how could S. Thomas say that no man is ever obliged to love God at all in his whole life since the whole world knows that he held That all men are obliged to turn unto God and to love him as soon as they begin to have the use of reason Notwithstanding this he forbears not to repeat the same thing and to confirm it also in these terms speaking of Charity and the Love of God He commands us not as we have said if S. Thomas may warrant us to love God under pain of damnation It is sufficient for him to save us that we habitually cherish it in us by the observation of his other Laws pag. 77. and in the 24. pag. God would be loved freely if he threats it is that he may be obeyed And also pag. 16. To love God actually more than all O 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