subditus contra Superiorem silius contra patrem parens contra filium Clericus aut Religiosus contra secularem contra absque ulla irregularitat is contractione Amicus de just jure disp 36. sect 5. n. 76. p. 407. This right saith he of thus defending ones life doth not appertain only to one private man against another private man but to a private man against a publique person to a Subject against his Superiour and to a Son against his Father to a Father against his Son to an Ecclesiastique or Monk against a Secular and to a Secular against an Ecclesiastique or a Monk without incurring any irregularity therefore It is true that this Jesuit seems not here to give power to kill a Father Mother Superiour and any one whosoever but onely to defend ones life against their enterprizes and wicked designs but he expounds himself more clearly afterwards speaking of honour and goods for defence whereof he gives liberty indifferently to kill all sorts of persons as well as for the defence of ones life e Conveniunt supradicti fas esse ad propulsandam ignominiam quam mihi aliquis inferre conatur illum praeveniens occidere siâ—ut fas est ad declinandam mortem quam mihi injustus invaser molitur illum occidere antequam mibi mortem vel mutilationem inferat Ibid. sect 7. n. 106. p. 410. The Authors of whom I have already spoken saith he are all agreed in this point that to defend our selves from some affront that would be put upon us it is permitted to prevent the aggressour by killing him as well as when a man endeavours to deprive us unjustly of our life or of any member we may kill him before he be able to execute his mischievous design It is not needful according to this Author to stay untill your Father or Master smites you maims you or makes you lose your honour For if he attempt onely to do it and you know his evil design he permits you to prevent and kill him Potes illum praeveniendo occidere And a little after speaking concerning goods a Sicut mihi licet pro tutela vitae meae honoris ita pro bonorum meorum quae ad vitam vitaque statum honorem conservandum necessaria sunt aggressorem si alia via illa desendere non possum interimere Ibid. sect 8. n. 127. p. 413. As I may saith he slay him who assaults me in the defence of my life and my honour so is it also lawful for me to do the same for defence of my goods which are necessary for the preservation of my life my estate and my honour if I cannot preserve them otherwise But if this crime appear too horrible to be undertaken upon the word of this Casuist I will make it appear in that which follow in this work that his opinion is the common sense of the Society In the mean while this charitable man and lover of the peace of consciences to remove from them all scruple about this point makes no difficulty to testifie that he is ready incase of necessity to do the same himself first of all which he advizeth unto others b Licet mihi pro tutela vitae meae honoris c. aggressorem interimere c. It is lawful for me saith he as well as any other whosoever he be for the defence of my life and my honour c. to kill any one without exception whosoever assails me So that a Monk himself ought not to make any difficulty upon this point unless he will be so presumptuous as to think himself a man of better abilities or more honest than a Jesuit who assures him that he is permitted to kill all those in general who would attempt any thing against his honour against his estate or against that of his Society For he doth not attribute this unto his Company as a particular priviledge but he assures us that it is a common right to all the Religions of what Order or reformation soever they be c Licebit Clerico vel Religioso calumniatorem gravia crimina de se vel de sua Religione spargere minantem occidere quando alius defendendi modus non suppetit uti non suppetere videtur si calumniator sit paratus ea velipst Religioso vel ejus Religioni publice coram gravissimis viris impingere nisi occidatur Amicus ibid. sect 7. n. 118. p. 544. It shall be lawful saith he for an Ecclesiastique or a Monk to kill a slanderer who threatens to produce great crimes against him or against his Order of Religion if he have no other way to defend them there-from as indeed it seems that he hath no other when the slanderer is ready to reproach him or his Order of Religion with those crimes publiquely or before some person of great Authority if he be not slain before To kill such a man it is not needful to stay till he attempts it is enough that he be ready to produce the crimes si calumniator sit paratus c. it is enough that he threatens to defame and to speak much evil gravia crimina spargere minantem And to assure the Monks yet more in an enterprise of this consequence these Divines declare that herein they do not onely nothing against Justice but also that it may so happen that Justice it self charity and the affection which they owe unto themselves and their Society may oblige them to use this remedy so sweet and so charitable It is Amicus who urges this discourse also for the rest d Hunc honorem poterunt Clerici ac Religiosi cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae etiam cum morte invasoris defendere Quin etiam interdum legâ— saltem châ—…itatis videntar ad illum defendendum teneri si ex violatione propriae famae integra Religio infamaretur Amicus ibid. The Ecclesiastiques and Monks may also defend their honours even at the cost of their lives who attempt to deprive them thereof provided they passe no farther then to what is simply necessary to defend themselves and they may be even obliged at least by the Law of Charity thus to maintain their reputation if your Infamy should redound to the disgrace of their whole Order This is a very strange charity since it hath the effects of the most violent hatred and rather it is a most monstrous hatred which brings one to kill in cold blood and to take away life in charity from him for whom he ought to lay down his own since our Saviour hath said that charity obliges us to lay down our life for our friends and that it requires us not onely to love our friends but our nenemies also and those who wish or do us hurt There remains now as it seems onely one difficulty in this important subject which is that possibly every one knows not how to kill men and have not hearts hard enough to embrue their hands in
c. 4. n. 28. p. 441. Is it lawfull to let ones house to a Whore or an Vsurer After he had testified that Mendoza made some difficulty therein he answers Å¿ Valentia tom 3. disp 5. qu. 21. part 4. docet locari posse etiamsi alteri commode posset locari Ibid. n. 28. That Valentia holds that he may let them it though he might easily let it to some other that is to say provided a person find any Temporal advantage therein it concerns him not though God be offended in his house and that to offend God is also an indifferent thing with him as well as the letting of his house to persons whom he knowes do hire it to offend God therein There is no son so unnatural who dares so much as think of letting a house which he holds of his father to persons whom he knowes to require it for no other end than therein to offend his own father and to abuse his own sister or his mother and if any son were capable of this excesse there is no father who could suffer this affront and who would not think himself in this more injured even by his son than by his enemies and those who attempted to dishonour him in this sort and yet according to the Divinity of the Jesuites God is not offended by such unworthy usage and he will not take it ill that a man who is related to him by so many titles of Son Servant and Creature who holds all he hath of him and who depends absolutely upon him le ts out his house to offend him and to commit crimes and abominations against him It is hard to have such thoughts of God without renouncing faith and even reason it self and without representing God as an Idol of wood or stone to beleeve that he is unsensible of such outrages and infamous actions as these and to imagine that he would not take it ill that a person who makes profession to be his and to serve him faithfully not only suffers these in his house but gives them his house to commit them in without other reason than his interest and even without reason and without necessity as some Jesuits maintain So it is that Sanchez who is the Master in this subject after he had said that Navarre was therein too exact and too scrupulous satis scrupuloâ—è locutus commends Valentia and Azor for having been more bold and for having surpassed all others in the defence of so good a cause a Sed ultra alies optime Valentia 2.2 disp 5. q. 20. puncto 5. col 5. vers Ex hoc autens Et melius q. 21. puncto 4. col penult Azor Tom. 2. Instit Moral l. 12. c. ult q 3. censent etiam nulla causa justae excusante licere locare domum meretrici Sanchez op mor. l. 1. c. 7. n. 20. p. 23. But Valentia saith he speaks in this better than all the rest And in another place he saith that he hath surpassed himself and that Azor and he held that one might let out his house to a Whore though he had no just reason to do it These are three Jesuites who speak together after this manner and these three the most famous of their Society Azor Valentia and Sanchez who reports the opinions of the former to confirm his own It is with the same spirit that Sanchez doth all he can to excuse those who take such infamous persons into their protection who retain them who pay them money who furnish them with garments who keep them in their houses and walk with them to defend them when they go abroad For though at first he confesses that he finds some difficulty in giving absolution to these persons yet for all that he afterwards facilitates the things in such manner that a Confessor who hath but a little contrivance and is well entred in his opinions shall have therein no trouble at all He builds alwayes upon the same foundation and draws from the same principles all the conclusions which he advances upon this matter b Duodecimo deducitur patronos meretricum difficillimo negotio posse absolvi Ibid. n. 32. p. 25. It is very hard saith he to absolve them who make themselves the protectors of Common Women See here a formed difficulty but he weakens and dissipates it in the same moment saying c Quamvis enim id munus obire liceat quando non ut meretricio faveant id obeunt sed ut incolumes meretrices servent Ibid. 3. It is lawfull to perform this office to them when there is no design to favour their debauchery but only to hinder that any wrong be done them He would say that it is not lawfull to entertain nor protect debauchery but only debauched women As if it were as easie to separate these things in effect as in the distinctions of the Schools and as if this were not to protect debauchery to hinder those who would take from them the liberty and license without which it could not subsist The Whore may take the same excuse for her self which is alledged for her protector and say that she loves not the debauch but the profit that she her self hath the same aversion from these disorders but necessity hath therein engaged her having not whereupon to live without prostituting her self It is sufficiently clear that this answer justifies her no lesse than her protector and the same gives us well to perceive that subtilties of spirit and metaphysical abstractions are bad rules for the conduct of mens manners and conscience I will relate one conclusion more of Sanchez before I return to the rest d Undecimo deducitur licere alicui dare mutuo nummos alteri aut cubiculum accommodare petenti ad fornicandum quando absque gravi detrimento proprio proportionato denegare nequit Ibid. n. 31. It followes saith he that it is lawfull to lend mony yea or a Chamber to sin with women when it cannot be refused without great damage which hath some proportion to this evil There needs only a promise of some notable summe and presently this money and the danger of losing it will blot out all the crime of this infamous action according to these Casuists or it would be good to hire out the Chamber instead of lending it both the one and the other being lawfull according to the Divinity of Valentia cited and approved by Sanchez e Etiam nulla justa causa excusante although you have no just reason which may serve you for an excuse Escobar speaks of the same case in the same sense and almost in the same words For having supposed it as a thing altogether certain and manifest f Scio co-operari peccato alterius peccatum esse qui concurrit ut causa remota à peccato excusari Rogo an quis dicatur proxime peccato co operasse dum commodat v.g. cubiculum amico sornicaturo ut magnum incommodum vitari possit Negative respondeo
because he favours him not Here is the case to which he answers precisely and without hesitation in these words If you desire only or receive with joy the effect of this death to wit the Inheritance of a Father the Charge of a Prelate the deliverance from some trouble he procured you the answer is easie that you may desire all these things lawfully and that because you rejoyce not in the evil of another but in your own proper good Dicastillus durst not at first determine upon this question because it seemed to him uncertain the Authority and Example of Castropalao having made him more bold he approves and propounds it as probable and Tambourin makes thereof a Maxime in which there is no difficulty at all facilis responsio Thus it comes to pass that these Doctors who make profession of a complacent Theology go on still advancing not to the better but to the worse as S. Paul speaks and labour to stretch or rather to corrupt mens consciences by stretching and corrupting the most holy and inviolable Rules of Faith and Morality and making those things probable which in themselves are incredible If to desire the death of ones father be of itself a crime as none can question it the crime is yet greater when he is carried thereto by some wicked motive as that of having his estate which comes from covetousness and injustice and contains in it also a notorious ingratitude and it is in the sight of God a kind of theft and usurpation to desire to have the estate of another and which is more of ones father against his will the appointment of God and all the Laws of Reason and Nature So that to justifie the desire a child hath of the death of his father by that which he hath of his goods is to justifie one crime by another wherein many more are also contained This injustice and disorder may appear yet more visible in the other Example brought by Tambourin of an Inferior who desires the death of his Superior A Monk for Example or a Clerk of his Abbot or Bishop that he might enter upon his Office For the desire alone of a Charge of this nature even under pretence of a good motive as to be serviceable unto Souls is a kind of ambition and presumption which renders a man unworthy of that Office which he desires in that manner as S. Thomas after the Scripture and Fathers doth expresly teach us he who hath not this good motive and desires to enter by a way so odious and criminal as is the death of his Superior is not only unworthy of the Office which he so desires but also deferves to be excluded from the Clergy and even to be chased out of the Church as a rebellious and unnatural child from the house of his father who desires to see his death though he dares not kill him himself How then can one of these desires justifie the other How can we say that an Inferior may lawfully desire the death of his Superior if we pretend not that one may be a murderer because he is an Usurper and desire the death of a man because we would have his goods without having either right or capacity but only an unjust and unreasonable pretence unto the one or the other This yet sufficeth not this barbarous and murthering Theology to permit children to desire the death of their father and mother they permit them also to be willing to kill them themselves to attempt their lives and effectually to kill them in some cases It is from this Principle that Dicastillus saith 2 Colligitur ulterius â—…citum esse fillis contra parentes servis contra dominos vassallis contra principes vi vim repellere quando actu invaduntur injuste cum praedictis conditionibus idemque de Monachis aut subditis contra Abbates Superiores Dicastill lib. 2. de just tr 1. d. 10. dub 3. num 30. An in casibus praecedentis dubitationis liceat directe velle intendere mortem injusti aggressoris ad defendendam propriam vitam Negat S. Thomaâ— His tamen non obstantibus asserendum est tanquam verissimum sicut honestum est in executione repeilere aggressorem illum occidendo pari raâ—lone honestum est directe illum velle intendere occidere Dub. 4. num 4. That a child who defends himself against his father who assaults him unjustly may kill him as also Servants their Masters Vassals their Princes Monks their Abbots and their Superiors Which he understands not only in such manner that a Son may kill his Father by accident and besides his intention in his own defence but so as he may have a design to kill him voluntarily For after he had proposed this case which I have now related and many others he concludes that in this case it is lawful to desire to kill him who assails us As for what concerns the respect due unto Fathers and Mothers Tambourin declares confidently 1 That a Son is to be excused from mortal sin who will not acknowledge his Father if he do it not of contempt but to avoid some inconvenience or that he might not be put to the blush in acknowledging him It is manifest that according to Scripture this is to renounce ones father as it is to renounce Jesus Christ to be ashamed to acknowledge and confess him and yet this is a small fault in the Jesuits Divinity Neither is he more religious about their obedience concerning which he demands 2 Filius si recognoscere nolit patrem non ex contemptu sed ad vitandum aliquod incommodum aut crubescentiam à mortali culpa sic puto esset excusand us Tambur lib. 5. decal cap. 2. sect 2. num 17. Whether children may lawfully contract Marriage with persons unworthy of their alliance against the will of their fathers and mothers He answers Though some believe they cannot without mortal sin which is very probable yet he avouches that it is probable and safe in conscience that they may ..... and that Sanchez hath reason to say that a daughter is so free as to Marriage that though she have not yet attained so much as twenty five years of age she may marry her self unto a person unworthy of her without her fathers consent Whence it follows according to this Author that Isaac exceeded his power when he so expresly forbad his Son Jacob to marry in the family of Chanaan which was unworthy of his alliance If the disobedience of a Daughter towards her Father in these circumstances be not criminal it seems it never can be so since it cannot be in a more important matter than this same wherein Marriage is concerned which imports an engagement for the whole time of life and a Marriage with an unworthy person and which proves a disadvantage and dishonour not only to the Daughter who enters it but also to her kindred and whole family But if we object to this Father that
the Jesuits absolutely overthrow this Commandment and authorize all sorts of Murthers THere is it may be nothing in all the Morals wherein the Jesuits are so transported as in this same The excesses they have committed therein are so great that as it is enough to raise an horrour against them only to understand them so we should have found it hard to believe them had we learnt them from others than themselves and if they after they had taught them in their Schools had not also published them every where by their Books 1. 1 Cum autem hujus legis vim Dominus explicaret in eo duo continere ostendit Alterum ne occidamus quod à nobis fieri vecitum est alterunt quod sacere jubemur ut concordi amicitia charitateque inimicos complectamur pacem habeamus cum omnibus cuncta denique incommoda patienter feramus Catech. ad Parâ—…hos This Precept contains in it two things according to the explication which our Lord gives thereof as the Catechism of the Council of Trent observes The one is forbidden us to wit Murther and the other is commanded us to wit love and charity towards our enemies peace with all the world and patience to suffer all sorts of evils The Jesuits destroy these two parts of this divine Precept by the pernicious Maxims of their Divinity For as to the second they are so far from believing that God hath commanded the love of enemies that they believe not so much as that there is any true Command to love our Neighbour in general nor God himself as we have seen whilst we spoke of the first Commandment of the Decalogue And for the first part which is the Command not to kill they overthrow it by infinite decisions which are contrary thereunto For they generally allow to kill in defence of honour life and goods not only when a man sees himself in a near and evident danger of losing them but when it is far off and uncertain They would not have you stay till a man smite you it is enough that he threatens you it is enough that you see him come afar off it is enough that he offends you with his words or that you know that he hath a design upon your life honour or goods for you to prevent and kill him with a good conscience The allowance they make herein is general and without exception They grant it to Clergy-men and to Fryars as well as Secular persons And to give the greater liberty to the use of it they make it pass for a right of nature of which they pretend that any whosoever may make use against any other whomsoever even a Servant against his Master a Son against his Father a Monk against his Superior leaving them at their choice to employ all means whatsoever they please and which they judge most proper for their design whether it be by open force or by surprize and making use of secret ways and by service of other persons interposed if they will not or dare not themselves attempt to kill those who do or would do them some hurt as we shall see by and by The matter is too large to be comprised under one single title wherefore I will divide this Article into five Points in each of which I will represent the Opinions of divers Authors of the Society beginning with Lessius I. POINT Lessius his Opinion concerning Murder SECTION I. How far he enlargeth the permission of Killing in defence of his own life that he holds that a Priest at the Altar may break off the Sacrifice to kill him who assails him LEssius proposes this Question concerning Murder If it be lawful to kill a man in defence of my own life Utrum liceat alterum occidere in vitae suae defensionem Lessiui de just jur lib. 2. cap. 9. dub 8. num 41. p. 83. And then he relates many cases in which he maintains that this is lawful The first case 1 Si reipsa me ferias armis de hoc nullum est dubium Ibid. num 42. saith he is if I be struck with a weapon and in this point there is no doubt at all The second is 2 Si accedas ad feriendum nec possim evadere nisi vel sugiam vel te praeveniam num 44. if you draw near unto me to strike me and I cannot avoid it unless I flye or prevent your blow The third is 3 Si nondum accedis tamen instructus es ad invadendum nec possum evadere nisi praeveniam Tuac enim possum praevenire num 45. when you do not yet approach but you are ready to invade me and I cannot avoid you but by preventing you I may in this case prevent you The fourth case 4 Si per samulum vel sicarium me statueris occidere num 46. when you have a design to cause me to be slain by a Servant or Assasin The fifth 5 Si falsis criminationibus testibusque subornatis v. c. imponendo sacrilegium vel crimen infandum vitam meam impetas in judicio num 47. when you fall upon me by way of justice to cause me to dye by false witnesses who accuse me of crimes which I have not committed imposing upon me for example some Sacriledge or other detestable crime It appears then that according to Lessius it is not necessary that you may with a good conscience prevent and kill a man for you to stay till he smite you it is sufficient that he draws near to smite you Si accedas ad feriendum It is enough that he is disposed to do it though he be far off from you Si nondum accedas sed tamen instructus es ad invadendum It suffices that he hath a will or hath given commission to another to do it Si per famulum aut sicarium me statueris occidere It is sufficient that he hath wrongfully accused you of some crime for which you may lose your life Si falsis criminationibus c. If you enquire unto whom it is lawful to kill in all these cases Molina will answer that the permission is general and for all sorts of persons 6 Dicendum est ad dubium propositum fas universim esse interficere eum qui nos interficere decrevit quando aliter non patet via evadendi mortem aut grande periculum mortis quod nequitia illius ex eo decreto nobis imminet Molina de just jur tom 4. tract 4. disp 13. num 2. pag. 1760 To answer saith he to the question proposed we must say that it is generally lawful to kill him who is resolved to kill you when there is no other means to avoid death or imminent danger of death whereunto you are reduced by the resolution he hath maliciously taken to cause you to dye That is to say that a prudent man according to Molina will not expect to use means for assuring his life till
he see himself nigh unto death but he will even prevent the danger and without attending till his enemy assail or seek him out to kill him will prevent kill him by getting the start of him as soon as he believes he bears him ill will and designs to put him to death Dicendum est fas esse universim interficere eum qui nos interficere decrevit This liberty is without any exception and for all people Fas est universim Amicus saith the same thing and he expounds it also more particularly For after that he hath advanced this general Maxime That every one hath a right to kill any whomsoever who would deprive him of his life he draws from thence some consequences which serve to establish and declare his Principle 7 Infeâ—…ur 1. hoc jus tuendi proprism vitam non solum hâ—bere personam privaâ—am contra privatam sed etiam privatam contra publicam subditum contra Superiorem filium contra patrem Clericum aut Religiosum cont a secularem è contra absque ulla irregularitatis contractione Amicâ—… de just jure disp 36. sect 5. num 76. pag. 537. It follows saith he 1. That not only one private man hath a right to defend himself against another private man but also against a publick person an inferior against his superior a Son against his father and mother a Clerk or a Monk against a Layman and a Layman against a Clergie-man or Monk without contracting any irregularity thereby And to shew us that this Maxime altogether barbarous and inhumane is common to and passes for certain with the whole Society Lessius maintains and rehearses it almost in the self same terms with Amicus and draws it like him from his Principles 1 Quare etiam Clericis Monachis hoc concessum sicut Laicis idque contra quoscunque etiam contra Superiores ut Monacho contra Abbatem filio contra parentem servo contra dominum vassalo contra Principem Lessius supra num 41. pag. 84. Therefore saith he it is lawful for Church-men and Monks to kill for the security of their lives as well as Laicks and they may use this liberty against any whomsoever and against their Superiors themselves as a Monk against his Abbot a Son against his Father and Mother a Servant against his Master a Vassal against his Lord and Prince So that according to this Doctrine and what we have already seen and heard him say relating and expounding the cases wherein we may prevent and kill a man in defence of our life if a Souldier see his Captain or a Child his Father a Subject his Lord or Prince lay hold on a Sword or Cudgel and lift his hand to strike him all these persons may with all freedom prevent the blow and danger yea they may also first smite and kill upon fear only of being killed themselveâ— The consequences of this bloody Doctrine which leads men on to such crimes as nature it self abhors are clearer than that I need to stay to represent them Lessius adds 2 Et in quocunque officio sit quis occupatus ut si celebret invadatur potest se tuâ—… occidere invasorem si necesse sit postea Sacrum continuare Lesiâ—… ibid. That this may be done in what sunction soever we be employed as if a Priest be assailed whilst he is at the Altar saying Mass he may defend himself and even kill if it be needful him who assaults him and afterwards go on with his Mass This without doubt is perfectly to imitate Jesus Christ who is offered in that Sacrifice who being nigh unto death prayed for those who caused it this is I say well to imitate Jesus Christ to forsake the Mass which is a Commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross and to abandon the Altar to smite and slay an enemy This is a good disposition wherein to return unto the Altar and continue the Mass to imbrue his hands in the blood of his neighbour and to come presently thereupon and lay them on the Body of Jesus Christ and to receive his Blood which he shed for his enemies This crime is not one single crime since it contains in it many and the greatest which can be committed It is without name as without example so enormous is it and unheard of in all past Ages and I see not to what end it could serve Lessius to speak of it without necessity and propound it for an example if it were not to make us see that the Jesuits Divinity is ingenious and fruitful in forming Monsters and inventing new Crimes and audacious in giving liberty to commit them SECTION II. That according to Lessius it is lawful to kill in defence of our Honour IT is not only in defence of our life but in the preservation of our honour that we may kill any one whomsoever according to Lessius Principles 1 Fas etiam est viro honorato occidere invasorem qui fukem vel alapam conatur impingece ut ignominiam inferat si aliter haec ignominia vitari nequit Lessius ibid. dub 12. num 77. pag. 89. It is also lawful saith he for an honourable person to kill an Assailant who would strike him with a cudgel or give him a box on the ear to affront him if he cannot otherwise avoid the disgrace And a little after to facilitate the practice of so pernicious a Doctrine he particularly sets down several ways by which we may attempt against anothers honour which are so many occasions whereupon he pretends it to be lawful to kill him who makes this attempt 2 Notandum est variis modis honorem alterlus possâ— impeti auferri in quibus videtur concessa defensio Ibid. num 78. It is to be observed saith he that the honour of another may be invaded and violated in divers manners against which it is lawful for him to defend himself by the ways he hath related First 1 Si baculum vel alapam nitaris impingere de quo jam dictum est Ibid. If one endeavour to strike him with a cudgel or to give him a box on the ear of which we spoke but now In the second place 2 Si contumeliis afficiatur sive per verbs sive per signa hic etiam est jus defensionis Ibid. If he be outragiously reproached by words or gestures he hath a right to defend himself and by consequence to kill In the third place 3 Si illata alicui alapa cesses vel etiam fugias Ibid. num 79. If he who hath given him a box on the ear continue in the same place or even though he flye away thereupon In the fourth place 4 Si nomini meo falsis criminationibus apud Principem vel viros honoratos detrahere nitaris nec alia ratione possim damnum illud famae avertere nisi te occulte interficiam Ibid. num 81. If you endeavour
and goods as Lessius hath now said but a Fryar may also kill to preserve his worldly honour according to the Jesuits Divinity This Doctrine at this day is very common in their Schools notwithstanding because it is ordinarily attributed to Amicus in particular and he himself makes no difficulty to declare himself the first Author thereof at least of many points which he propounds himself and which he saith he found neither cleared handled nor so much as propounded by any Author we will afford him the honour of being treated as the Father of a new opinion and we will represent apart his opinions upon this point since they are singular or at least were so when he first produced them For they have since made a marvellous progress as we shall see in the sequel of this Article He saith first as Lessius that to eschew the danger of losing life a Monk hath the same right as a secular person to kill him that assaults him whoever he be 1 Hoc jus tuendi propriam vitam non solum habet privatâ— persona contra privatam sed etiam privata contra publicam subditus contra Superiorem filius contra patrem pareâ—s contra filium Clericus aut Religiosus contra secularem contra absque ulla irregulatitatis contractione Amicus tom 5. de just jure disp 36. sect 4. num 76. pag. 537. This right saith he of defending his life belongs not only to one private person against another but also to a private against a publick person to a Subject against his Superiour a Son against his Father a Father against his Son an Ecclesiastick or Monk against a Secular a Secular against an Ecclesiastick or Monk without any irregularity thereby incurred But he stays not there he pretends that they may make use of this right of killing for the preservation of their repute in the world as well as their lives 2 Conveniunt suptadicti fas esse ad propulsandam ignominiam quam mihi aliquis inferre conatur illum praeveniendo occldere sicut fas est ad declinandam mortem quam mihi injustus invasor molitur illum occidere antequam mihi mortem vel mutilationem inserat Ibid. sect 7. num 106. pag. 542. The Authors of whom I speak saith he agree in this point that to defend our selves from an affront which would be given us it is lawful to prevent the aggressor by killing him in the same manner as when a man endeavours to deprive us unjustly of life or member it is lawful to kill him before he can execute his wicked design It seems at first sight that this general Proposition is to be extended only to the Laity But besides that he gives in all things which concern the right of killing the same liberty to the Monks as to the Laity as we shall see hereafter he declares it also here very manifestly For after he hath demanded whether that he now said 3 Sed adhuc superest difficultas an omnibus perfonis licitum sit in tutelam honoris invasorem occidere Negant id concessum esse Clericis Religiofis ut cum glossa in Clement Si furiosus de homicidio glossa in caput Suscepimus sub eodem titulo docent communiter Doctores Ibid. pag. 544. That it is lawful to kill in defence of honour ought to be extended to all sorts of persons And said that according to Law and the common opinion 〈◊〉 the Doctors it is forbidden the Religious he forbears not to say afterward 4 Negari tamen non potest honorem famamque illam quae ex virtute so sapientia nascitur quique verus honor est juste defendere Clerici aut Religiosi valeant ac saepe debcant cum hic sit proprius professionis corum Quem si amittant maximum bonum ac decus amittunt Ibid. num 118. pag. 544. That we cannot at least deny that Clergie-men and Fryars may and even are obliged to defend their honour and reputation which proceeds from vertue and prudence because this honour doth properly appertain to their profession and that if they lose it they lose a very great benefit and advantage The point of honour then according to the Principles of this Jesuits Divinity ought to be accounted amongst Church-men and Monks as well as amongst the most ambitious men of the world for one of their greatest blessings 1 Ergo saltem hunc honorem poterunt Clericiâ—c Religiosi cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae etiam cum morte invasoris defendere Ibid. Maximum bonum ac decus Whereupon he concludes and saith in the second place That the Clergie and Religious may at least defend their honour and in doing all which is necessary thereto may even kill him who would deprive them of it And to encourage and incline them to commit this Murder with greater confidence he represents it to them as an action of vertue and contents not himself to say that they may but declares that sometimes they ought to do it so that they should sin against Charity if they failed therein Quin interdum lege saltem charitatis videntur ad illum defendendum teneri Ibid. Yea and sometimes at least by the Law of Charity they seem obliged to defend it What kind of Religious Charity is this that obliges to commit Murders for fear of suffering some loss or diminution in worldly honour If it be Jesuitical Charity it is not that of S. Paul which he recommends unto Christians when he saith 2 Charitas non inflatur non est ambitiosa non quaerit quae sua sunt 1 Cor. 13. v. 4. That Charity is not puffed up is not ambitious and that it seeks no its own private interests Amicâ—s doth not content himself to have said once or twice very clearly that it is lawful for a Monk to kill for the point of honour he repeats it again as a thing very important drawing this conclusion from his Principle 3 Unde licebit Clerico vel Religioso calumniatorem gravia crimina de se vel de sua Religione spargere minâ—ntem occidere quando alius desendendi modus non supperat Ibid. It follows that it will be lawful for a Clergie-man or a Monk to kill a slanderer who threatens to publish some great crimes against him or his Order if he have no other means to defend himself therefrom It is not needful therefore according to him that a Monk attend until a slanderer speak evil of him or his Order that he may kill him it is sufficient that he threats to disgrace him and even without expecting this if he believes that he hath a will thereto and that he is disposed and ready to do it For in that case this Jesuit gives him the same right to kill him 4 Si calumniator fit paratus ea vel ipsi Religioso vel ejus Religioni publice ac coram gravissiâ—is viris impingere nisi occidatur Ibid. If
duty of Justice and he fears not to say and declare that he who fails herein sins mortally 1 Quando aggrestus persona esset cujus vita multum Respublicae vel in spiritual ibus vel in temporalibus referret teneretur sub reatu culpae lethalis interficere aggressorem si posset ut vitam suam conservaret Molina de just commuâ— tract 3. disp 14. pag. 1754. When he who is assaulted saith he is a person whose life is of importance and necessary to the Weal publick whether it be in temporals or spirituals he is obliged under mortal sin to kill if be can the Aggressor in defence of his life If this Jesuit had been found amongst the Apostles when our Lord said unto them that he should be delivered unto the Gentiles outragiously dealt with and put to death he would have believed without doubt that he ought to have opposed himself thereto more forcibly than S. Peter did who said unto him only by way of advice and natural affection 2 Absit à te Domine non erit tibi hoc Matt. 16. v. 22. God forbid Lord that this should befal thee this evil shall not be unto thee And he would have had no better answer than that which Jesus Christ made unto S. Peter 3 Vade post me Satana scandalum es mihi quia non sapis ea quae sunt Dei sed quae hominum Ibid. v 23. Get thee behind me Satan thou art an offence unto me for thou savourest not the things that are of God but of men It must also be observed that he would have the Commandment to kill an Aggressor unless we will sin mortally not to be only for publick persons when the publick good is in question but also for private persons when the interests of their families are concerned See here his words 4 Idem videtur eff si ex ipsius morte sequeretur maximum detrimeâ—… tum familiae ut uxori ac filiis quos alere tenetur Molina ibid. It seems that the same is to be said if his death would bring some great prejudice unto his family as to his wife his children whom he is obliged to sustain And for fear that it should be objected to him that if this man be not obliged in Justice to expose his life or his goods for his neighbour that he might recover him from death eternal and temporal at once he might at least do it of Charity he prevents this objection by saying 5 Quamvis enim posset cedere juri suo permittendo se ab aggressore interfici ne aggressor damnum mortis temporalis aeternae incurreret non tamen posset cedere juri suorum quibus vit a ipsius est necessaris quibus alimenta protectionem debet quae à vita ipsius pendent Ibid. That though it might be lawful for him to depart from his right by suffering himself to be slain by him that assaults him to prevent his falling into death temporal and eternal yet he cannot give away the right of those who belong unto him to whom his life is necessary being obliged to maintain and defend them And by consequence he sins mortally in not killing the Aggressor if he can for the preservation of his life But why may he not say also of the Head of an Ecclesiastick Body of the Superior of an Order and of all those who have any Charge or Employment in the Church what he speaks generally of those whose lives are necessary for the Common-wealth or their private Families 6 Tenetur sub reatu culpâ—… lethalis interficere aggresscrem si possit ut vitam suam conservet That they are obliged under mortal sin to kill the Aggressor if they can for the preservation of their lives The one as well as the other is a consequence of his Principle and his reason is stronger for a Head of an Ecclesiastical Body or Superior of an Order or a person who hath some Charge in the Church than for a Secular Magistrate or a Father of a Family it being more true of every one of the former than of the latter 7 Est persona cujus vita multum Reipub in temporalibus in spiritualibus refert That be is a person whose life is very important to the Weal-publick of the Church both in temporals and spirituals Whence it will follow that we may say according to the same Jesuit 8 Tenetur sub reatu culpae lethalis interficere aggressorem si pâ—ssiâ— ut vitam suam 〈◊〉 conservet That he sins mortally if he kill not him that assaults him if he can in the defence of his life So that it shall not be in one or two cases only but in an infinity of occurrents almost that this Command of Killing which Molina would introduce amongst Christians shall oblige them under pain of eternal damnation And it would not be easie according to the Doctrine of this Jesuit to exempt from mortal sin a multitude of holy Martyrs who have suffered themselves to be slain unjustly not only without defending themselves but also sometimes forbidding those who could and would to defend them because some of them being Fathers of Families and others Fathers of the Church and of the Faithful their lives were of importance both in spirituals and temporals So that though they might recede from their right in Charity and suffer themselves to be slain without defending themselves yet they could not according to this new Theology recede from the right of those who appertained to them and who were under their Charges whereunto their lives were necessary And by consequence if this Jesuit do not shew them favour and grant them a dispensation from this Rule they sin mortally in dying for Jesus Christ and not defending themselves and not doing all they could to preserve their lives so far as to kill if it were needful their Aggressors But if he pretend that this Commandment is from God as it ought to be that it may imply so great and strict an obligation we must also believe that the Law of God is less reasonable and less just than the Maxims of Philosophy and the Civil Laws of Pagans who never commanded nor taught any such thing and who rather condemn it in many cases in which the Jesuit approves it as an excess and crime he must therefore be constrained either to change the Commandments of God or to increase their number we must according to him make eleven Commandments of God instead of ten or indeed instead of what hath been said to this present Thou shalt not kill we must say for the time to come Thou mayst kill oftentimes without fear of mortal sin and thou shalt even be obliged sometimes to kill on pain of Hell IV. POINT The Opinion of Escobar concerning Murder I Will give all this Article to Escobar and indeed he deserves it well for he is Spokesman for twenty four of the most famous
they had introduced into Christian Morality and having reduced them unto certain heads with a very neat and pure order which may be worthy to have the name of the particular Character of his Spirit But God permitted that when he had finished this so important Work he delivered it into the hands of a Doctor one of his Friends that he might communicate it unto others who were of known Learning and Zeal This Doctor acquitted himself faithfully in this Commission but those to whom he committed this Book that they might examine it being diverted therefrom by a multitude of affairs returned no answer unto him of a long time so that the Author continuing sick saw himself nigh unto death without knowing in a manner what was become of his Book and only understood that they judged it most worthy to be printed and that the Church might draw therefrom very great advantages if it pleased God to give it his blessing As therefore he proposed unto himself in this Work no other thing than to serve the Church this answer sufficed to banish out of his mind all the disquiet which he could have had thereabouts and he very easily and without farther trouble did wholly commit the care of it to Divine providence to which he had been always most submissive This submission notwithstanding hindred not but that some time before his death he recommended it unto another of his friends whom he knew to be very greatly concerned for every thing whereunto he had relation But this Friend being not able to address himself to any other save that Doctor who had not the Book any longer in his own hands and who could not himself learn thereof any news at all saw himself speedily after out of condition to serve both the Church and his Friend in such manner as he earnestly desired Some years past over in this uncertainty of what was become of this so precious a Work at which time God who had reserved unto himself the disposal thereof caused it to fall happily into the hands of a person who had no correspondence with its Author but seeing that it might be profitable to the Church thought himself obliged to contribute all his credit and power to its publication Here you have what was thought meet for the Readers to know concerning the History of this Book It were to be desired that we might speak here more openly concerning its Author but the Society of the Jesuits have accustomed themselves so to use those who endeavour to serve them by discovering unto them the excesses wherein they engage themselves and such is the implacable fury with which they pretend to have right according to their Maxims to persecute them as will not permit us to render unto his name the glory he hath therein deserved All that we can say therein to the end we may not leave those who come after us without knowing at least something of a person to whose zeal they will esteem themselves so much obliged is only this that he seemed to have been raised to combate and confound the Errours of these Fathers He had a mind facile clear and solid a sweetness and moderation in all respects charming an humility ingenuous beyond all that can be imagined stealing away the splendour of his other vertues from the eyes even of his most intimate Friends His education was admirable and contributed not a little to the beauty of his Spirit the purity of his Learning and the innocence of his Manners For he was born of a Father who had a care altogether peculiar to him to fortifie happily his Children against popular Errours to inspire into them the most pure Maxims of the Gospel and to enlarge their minds with the fairest speculations This so sage and so Christian conduct helped very much to augment the inclination which he had unto piety so that he had no sooner finished his course in Philosophy than he proceeded of himself to the study of Divinity to which he applyed himself with so great success that being received into the Colledge and Society of Sorbonne he performed all his acts with universal applause and thereupon received there the Doctors Cap. The only thing he had to combate with in this his laudable enterprise was the passionate affection which he had for the Mathematicks For as this Science is the most assured of all humane Sciences and almost the only one in which may be found any certainty capable to satisfie a Spirit which loves the truth the love which he had even to this truth it self wrought in him so violent an inclination to this Science that he could not withhold himself from applying and busying his thoughts therein for the inventing some or other new machine But at length the Holy Spirit which did conduct his Studies made him overcome in a little time the propension he had to these innocent inquiries and curiosities and he thought that it was not sufficient for a Divine to despise the divertisements of the world but that he ought also to deprive himself of those of his mind and he did only search after the truth where it was to be found that is to say in the Holy Scripture and in the Books of the holy Fathers So that we may well say of him what S. Gregory Nazianzene said in commendations of his Brother Caesarius who had greatly loved Astrology and the Mathematicks that he had the ingenuity to draw out of these sorts of Sciences all that was profitable therein learning thence to admire the invisible greatnesses of God which were resplendent in his works and knew to defend himself from that which was pernicious in them which is the adherence they have who apply themselves thereunto to their conjectures and to those truths which they pretend to discover therein This generous disengaging himself from all other things advantaged him not a little in the progress which he made in Ecclesiastical knowledge and in that part of Divinity which they call Scholastick which conducts Reason by the light of Faith and Tradition This his progress appeared more especially in the troubles which agitated the Faculty of Divinity of Paris in the year 1656. for he there defended the truth with so great moderation that he did not render it odious but on the contrary he did astonish and surprize his enemies The zeal he had for it was ardent but this ardour was tempered by his prudence and his knowledge was not less modest than his sweetness was couragious that there might be seen equally lightning in his discourse the regard which he had not to disoblige any person and the inflexible firmity which God had given him for the defence of his truth The wounds which that renowned Body received then in its Discipline entred very deep into his heart and the grief which he received therefrom increased by the consideration of the mischiefs which the Church was threatned with and which it resents unto this day began to alter his health
destroy themselves and are refuted themselves by themselves and it suffices simply to report their Doctrine to make appear that it overturns the Foundations of Religion and that it is not only opposite to the Wisdom of the Cross and Christian Philosophy but also to Reason and the Philosophy of the Heathens It is true that this corruption is not equally evident in all their Maxims and that to surprize more easily those who have some fear of God they do propose these unto them with some kind of temperament covering them with some specious pretences which serve for reasons to engage them to follow them without scruple But the Author of these Morals hath so dextrously unfolded all these Artifices and all these studied subtilties and hath so neatly discovered their malignity that there is no fear that those who read them will suffer themselves to be deceived by them nor that they can have any confidence in the people whom he hath made clearly to appear to have a priviledge to speak every thing that they please and not to contradict themselves at all in speaking things altogether contrary according to the diversity of places times and the interest of their Society who give themselves the liberty and the right not only of two contrary opinions to chuse that which is most for their commodity but even to follow both the two according to divers occasions and the different relishes of those who consult with them finally who content not themselves only to refute the holy Fathers the Popes and the Councils when they are not for their convenience but who also take the confidence to make them speak what they please altogether contrary to what they do speak It is true also that this Author having undertaken to make us see the general corruption which the Jesuits have spread all over the Morals could not avoid to speak of those matters which S. Paul saith ought not to be proceeded in so far as to be named by Christians and that he is forced to shew how they would make Marriage which is the Image of all pure and all holy Union of Jesus Christ with the Church and which ought to be handled with all honour to give right to shameful filthinesses which even the Pagan Philosophers themselves have condemned according to these excellent words of an ancient Author Adulter estuxoris amator acrior He is an Adulterer who is too eager a Lover of his Wife Notwithstanding he hath been careful not to transcribe those ordures with which Sanchez hath filled whole Volumes among which some have been so scandalous that they have been left out in some Editions which yet have been no hinderance to Tambourin and Amadeus to renew them where he speaks of these excesses and other such like it is with such temperance that discharging the Reader of a good part of the confusion which he might have received thereby he doth not forbear at all to instruct him sufficiently and make him conceive all that horrour wherein he ought to have these miserable Writers who seem principally to be composed to satiate their imagination with most enormous unheard of crimes Finally That which doth yet more justifie the design of the Author of these Morals and the manner wherein he handles these things is that now of a long time all these excesses which are herein rehearsed have been made publick by the Jesuits themselves who have caused them to be printed and sold and who have delivered them into the hands of an infinite of Religious persons and Directors of others not very clear sighted who think that they cannot better learn the Maxims of Christian Morality than in reading the most famous Authors of so celebrated a Society So that it will be of very great importance to make the corruptions of these Authors so known that no man may hereafter be mistaken in them And this cannot be better executed than by proposing those very same Maxims as impious and detestable which the Jesuits have propounded in their Books as good and safe this alone being sufficient to work effects altogether contrary in mens spirits as may be seen in the Example of Escobar who having been imprinted thirty nine times as a very good Book hath been now imprinted the fortieth time as one of the most mischievous Books in the whole World which hath so wrought that whereas the first thirty nine Editions were very prejudicial to the Church this fortieth hath been very beneficial unto it And the same we believe may happen in the publication of these Morals which the alone zeal and love of the purity of the Morality of Jesus Christ hath induced us to make publick It is hoped that this Publication will prevail to remove the scandal which the Jesuits have caused from the Church to which they gave place to the Hereticks to attribute those Opinions for which it hath the greatest horrour and that these unhappy persons who are separated from its communion shall not impute them unto it any more after so publick a disavowing of these Maxims altogether abominable as they are not giving them yet any advantage above the Jesuits themselves because it is not hard to make appear that the Principles of their Morality are no less corrupted nor pernicious than those of these Fathers It is hoped that this Publication will stir up the Pastors of the Church to renew the zeal which they have already made appear against the Authors of so many corruptions that they will interdict in their Diocesses the reading of these Books that they will take the ways which the Sacred Canons have prescribed them 2 Tim. 2.17 to repress so pernicious Novelties and that they will hinder them that they spread not over mens spirits as Gangrenes which waste and corrupt by little and little that which was sound and that they will fear lest while they dissemble these excesses and pass by those who are their Authors they make themselves culpable of the loss of a great number of Souls which these blind Guides seduce and train along with them into the pit We despair not even of the Jesuits themselves that they also may draw from thence the advantage which this Author hath earnestly desired to procure them For although it seems by their conduct which they have hitherto held herein that they are resolved to persevere in maintaining these damnable Maxims and to despise the wholesom advertisements which the whole Church hath given them to abandon them yet notwithstanding it may be said that if they have used them in this sort it hath been perhaps because they were not yet sufficiently convinced of the justice of the reproaches which have been cast on them and that some secret interest hath hindred them from perceiving them in the Writings of those whom they looked upon as their Adversaries But now that a person whom they cannot suspect and who hath never been engaged against them hath presented unto them so distinctly the concatenation of the Maxims
and Conclusions which their Authors have taught it will be very hard for them not to be surprized therein and not to be powerfully struck by so many detestable Opinions Who knows but God hearing the prayers which have now for a long time been ordained by the whole Clergy of France and which have been made publickly in some particular Diocesses to beg for them that he would open their eyes may touch them and bring them on highly to disowne the Authors of so many abominations and to make it appear by their condemning them themselves as publick Plagues and declared Enemies of all Truth and Justice that the Crimes with which they have been reproached belong only to some private men and not to the whole Society The approbation of the Doctors hath not been sought after for the Publication of this Book For besides that there was no apparent need to expose the Approbators to the indignation of a Society who hold it for a Maxime that they may with a safe conscience kill them who pretend to hurt them in their reputations it was believed that this precaution would not be necessary on this occasion Indeed the Author producing nothing of his own in this Book and having prescribed unto himself only therein to represent faithfully those Maxims alone of the Jesuits Morals which are notoriously wicked and which are the very same against which all the Parochial Rectors of the most considerable Towns of the Realm have been stirred up so that the Pope the Bishops the Sorbonne and the other Catholick Faculties have condemned by their Censures the Apology of the Casuists and that the Faculty of Divinity in Paris have now very lately censured in the Books of Vernant and Amadeus we believe all these Censures to be as so many Approbations of this Book and that for that cause the Pope the Bishops the Sorbonne and the other Faculties and the Parochial Rectors of the principal Towns of France may pass for its Approbators or at least of the Doctrine contained therein For as to the knowing whether the Author hath been a faithful Relator of the Propositions of the Authors whom he cites every one in particular may well be allowed to judge thereof because indeed better Judges of this sort of differences than the eyes of those who shall have any scruple in this point cannot be had But if the Jesuits and some of the Partisans of their Society complain of this Author because he hath so exactly represented their Extravagances there is cause to hope that all other faithful people will be satisfied therewith because that one may say in truth that he gives by his Book unto every one that which belongs unto him and which the Casuists of the Society have used their utmost force to ravish from them He gives unto God the love the acknowledgment and the worship which belongs unto him to the Church the belief and submission of the Faithful to worldly Powers their honour and the fidelity of their Subjects safety to their Estates to Fathers and Mothers the obedience and respect of their Children to Children the love and tenderness of their Fathers and Mothers Conjugal fidelity to Husbands and Wives to Masters the fidelity of their Servants to Servants kindness of their Masters to the Ecclesiasticks Piety and Religion equity and integrity to Judges true honour unto the Nobility fair dealing unto Merchants Finally he establishes in the World all those Vertues which the Jesuits seem resolved to banish from thence that they might entertain and cause to reign there all the disorders which the malice of men or the Devil himself was capable to invent The Translators Conjecture concerning the Author of this Advertisement and of the Book it self THis Advertisement seems to be Father Arnolds the Preface and Work his Nephew Monsieur Pascals who is also supposed to have written the Porvincial Letters not without his Uncles privity and assistance whose head and hand could not be wanting to this Work also if his The style much differing and Lewis Montalt affirming himself to be no Doctor makes me suspect a third hand to have been made use of in drawing up those Letters however these Doctors as I am credibly informed were the Head-contrivers of them There are also many passages in the Provincials which seeming to promise this Work confirm my Conjecture The Preface of the Author The Design and Order of this Work THE end of Morality not only among Christians but also among the Pagans hath always been to make known that which is good and to separate it from the bad to carry men on to vertue and to good actions and to turn them away from vice and from sin and in pursuit thereof to teach them the means to proceed from the one to the other It cannot be shewed more easily and more evidently how dangerous and prejudicial the Moral Divinity of the Jesuits is than by making it appear that it tends and leads to a quite contrary end and that it walks in ways opposite to Reason and to the Law of Nature as well as those of Christian Piety that it confounds good and evil or to use the words of Scripture it calls evil good and good evil that the more part of the resolutions which it gives upon the points and particular cases which respect conscience tend to the stopping up in men the lights and motions of conscience it self and favours lust which corrupts it that the Principles from which they draw their Resolutions and the Reasons of which they make use for to support them are so many means and expedients proper for to authorize vice to sustain sin to excuse the most criminal actions and to entertain loosness and disorder in all sorts of Professions This is that which I have a design to make appear in this Book And to the end that I may before-hand give a general Idea of all that which I handle therein and represent most clearly the Method and consequence of the means whereof I make use to justifie that which I pretend I will expose here in a few words the whole order and disposition of my Discourse I reduce all these matters to certain principal Points which I handle after such manner and in such order as seems to me most clear and most proper to make appear the consequence of the Moral Doctrine of the Jesuits the connexion of their Principles with their Conclusions and the conformity of their practice with their Opinions For the consort and the resemblance which is between their Doctrine and their Conduct is so perfect that it is visible it proceeds from the same Spirit tends to the same end which is to please men to satisfie them by flattering their passions and their interests and to train them up in vice and disorder To see clearly the truth of this point which is the whole subject of this Book it must first be considered that there seems not possible to be found a way more proper to
and to oppose themselves to those that teach them as the Shepherds obliged to resist the Wolves who would devour their stock Yet they omitted not to have recourse to the Authority of the Church and to address their complaints and requests to my Lords the Bishops and to the General Assembly of the Clergie of France in the year 1656. who seeing that it was not at all in their power at that time to do them justice did at least make it known to the whole Church that opportunity only was wanting unto them And for that cause ordained that the Instructions of S. Charles should be imprinted by the order of the Clergie with a circular Letter to all my Lords the Prelates which served to prejudge their opinions and to give as it were a commencement to the condemnation of all these Maxims in general expecting till some opportunity were offered to do it more solemnly The voice of these charitable Pastors was heard and faithfully followed by their sheep who by the submission they owed to them and through the confidence which they had in their honesty and sufficiency entred into an aversion against this new Doctrine as soon as it was declared unto them that it was contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and that of the holy Fathers It were also to be wished that this same voice which came from Heaven being Jesus Christ speaks in the Church by its Pastors had turned or at leastwise stayed the Authors of this Doctrine and had kept them in silence and that they had themselves also suppressed these strange opinions and pernicious Maxims against which they saw the whole World to rise with a general indignation and with a most just zeal But this did nothing but provoke them yet more so that instead of receiving Christian-like the charitable correction of these worthy Pastors of Souls they had the confidence to appear in publick to maintain so great Errours by Writings yet more wicked imitating those fierce beasts who issue in fury out of the Forests and Dens to defend their young when they are about to be taken from them My Masters the Parochial Rectors had by an extraordinary temperance and moderation suppressed the names of the Jesuits and not distinguished them from the other Casuists attacquing the Doctrine only without touching the persons of any particular Order But these good Fathers could neither lye hid nor keep silence and judged themselves unworthy of the favour which they had received upon this occasion And as if this Doctrine had been their own particularly they would needs declare themselves the Defenders of it as indeed they are the principal and even the first Authors thereof in many of its most important points They made for it an Apologie wherein so very far were they from disavowing and retracting those pernicious Maxims wherewith they were reproached that they did highly maintain them and to testifie that they never intended to recant them they have declared that in many matters wherein their excesses are most visible they can yet speak more and give yet more licence to their spirits An evil so publick and so obstinate cannot be healed nor stayed by simple words Which thing hath obliged my Masters the Parochial Rectors to renew their complaints and their instances to my Lords the Prelates Some of them have already worthily acquitted themselves in this their duty to the Church and People who depend on their charge And it is hoped that the zeal and charity of the rest will press them to give the same testimony unto the truth and that if some of them for some particular reasons cannot do it so solemnly as they desire yet they will not cease to condemn in their hearts and upon occasions which shall be offered this novel Doctrine and to keep those whom they can at a distance from it as a most pernicious Divinity After all this it was thought to be high time farther to discover this Doctrine and to represent it in the whole extent it hath in the Books of the Jesuits that the corruption and the venom of it might be better known It had been to little purpose to have done it sooner because that the excess and overthrow it hath given to all the true Rules of Morality and Christian piety are so great and so incredible that the world having yet never heard any thing like unto it would have been surprized at the novelty and impiety of the principal Maxims of these dreadful Morals so that many would have been troubled to believe it others would have been offended at it and many would have altogether neglected it and would not so much as have taken the pains only to have informed themselves so far as that they might not suffer themselves to be surprized therein The Jesuits themselves would not have failed to have broken out into complaints calumnies and impostures which are common with them in use against such as discover their secrets and the shame of their Divinity and they would have employed all their artifices and disguises to elude or obscure the most clear things wherewith they should have been reproached though they had been represented simply as they are expressed in their Books But yet notwithstanding that these pernicious Maxims had been confounded and decryed by my Masters the Parochial Rectors fulminated by the censures of the Bishops there is cause to hope that exposing them to the day will be useful to many of the Faithful and hereby will be seen more clearly the justice and necessity of the pursuits which the Parochial Rectors made for obtaining a censure of them the equity of the Judgment of the Prelates made in pursuance thereof and the obligation which all the Faithful have upon them to stiffle these Monsters of Errour and Impiety which multiply continually and prey upon the Church So that this will even contribute very much to redouble the submission and confidence which they ought to have towards their Pastors seeing from what mischiefs their vigilance and their zeal hath preserved them and with what prudence and wisdom they have conducted them in this affair having not discovered the greatness of the evil to them before as it may be said they had delivered them from it And it may also come to pass that the Authors and Defenders of these wicked Doctrines may themselves be surprized and have horrour when they see together in a sequence of Principles and Conclusions the opinions which they have maintained to this present Because it is very common for things good or evil which apart make no great impression upon the spirit surprize and touch it powerfully when as they are united and joyned together There is also cause to believe that many of those who have followed unto this present these novel Maxims of the Jesuits only because they did not perceive all the unhappy consequences and pernicious effects of them now coming to know them as this Book will give them means to do will relinquish them
Superiour of the Religionary hath for him or when his Master makes no account of that which is stoln from him or when he is of such a disposition that he would not have him who had stoln it from him obliged therefore to any great punishment In these few words Lessius hath put together three reasons to excuse in a manner almost all sorts of thefts from mortal sin and hath given liberty to commit them without fear of sinning mortally e Quando quis scit affectum Domini in se talem esse c. First of all when any one perswades himself that his Father or his Mother or his Master or his friend or his neighbour or any one whomsoever might give that which he steals if it were asked or if he knew that he had need of it A child may easily promise himself this of his Father or a servant of his Master and generally every one whosoever of him whom he believes to have some inclination or affection towards him 2. f Aut certe quando Dominus rem parvi aestimat aut ita in aliquem est affectus ut nollet illum gravi obligatione teneri When the person from whom something is stoln makes small account thereof or hath not much affection for it or gives not himself much to it this gives liberty to rob persons that are gentle prodigal and good people above all who because they sit loose from the things of this world do make no great matter thereof 3. When a person is of that disposition that he would be loath that the thief should therefore be subjected unto great pains as to fall into mortal sin and by consequence into eternal damnation There are no persons so barbarous as to desire to engage him to eternal damnation who hath robbed him of something and much lesse a Father a Master a Friend a Neighbour if he be not bereft of all sense of Christianity and altogether unnaturall If then mortal sin in the matter of theft depend on the disposition and will of him that is robbed as this Casuist pretends it will come to passe that no Child Servant Friend or other person almost can at all offend mortally in thest 4. g Potestne Thesaurarius vel Procurator Principis Domino inscio cum ipsius pecuniis in suum commodum negotiari Potest ex Doctrina Lessii modo nullum incommodum aut gericulum domino obveniat Escebar tract 3. cxam 4. n. 95. p. 392. They hold that a Treasurer a Factor a Sollecitor a Servant and such like may traffique with their Masters money without his privity and retain the profit for themselves 5. They teach that a Vintner who hath better wine then ordinary for that he may not sel it by reason of some politique order above the common price may recompense himself therein by mingling water therewith This is also the opinion of Escobar who after he had reported the opinion of those who condemn this deceit he adds that notwithstanding their opinion and their reasons h Attamen Lessius posse dilui affirmat quia nuâ—la injuria infertur emptori Escobar tract 3. exam 6. n. 70. p. 423. Lessius maintains that it is lawful because those that buy this Wine have no prejudice thereby Amicus saith the same thing of grain as well as of Wine i Infertur posse veaditorem qui vinum vel triticum venale habet optimum tantum aquae in vino sâ—ligin is intritico miscere quantum sat is est ad reducendum vinum vel triticum ad eam qualitatem cujus est aliud vinum vel triticum quod eodem pretio venditur Amicus de just jur dispen 21. Sect. 6. n. 87. p. 282. That a man who selleth Wine or Grain which is very good may mingle so much of water with his Wine and Rie with his Wheat as will reduce one with the other to the quality of the common Wine and Grain which are sold at same price with his 6. Tailors also may find their advantage in Escobar who justifies that deceit which is very common amongst them k Sartor cui cura emendi pannos serica pro vestibus conficiendis committi solet si unius mercator is officinam frequentans invenit pretia mitiora potesine pretii illius excessum sibi remissum retinere Negat Salas dub 45. n. 6. quia mercalor revera nihil ei dimittit sed dimittere mentitur ad eum alliciendum Porro Filliutius tom 2. tr 35. c. 6. n. 149 affirmat Escobar tract 3. exam 6. n. 60. p. 421. He demands whether a Tailor who hath been accustomed to buy Cloath or Silk by command from another for to make his Cloaths and goes on this occasion most commonly to a Shop of a Merchant who for this reason sells him a good penny worth may retain to himself the benefit of his good market He confesses presently that Salas condemns this as a manifest cheat because the Merchant gives nothing of his own to this Taylor and that which he makes shew of abating him is effectually paid by him for whom he bought it But he concludes at last for the Taylor with Philliutius The reason upon which they do both ground this is because this practice is past into a custom l Quia revera assolet mercator aliquid remittere ob officinae frequentionem For saith he the Merchant is indeed accustomed to abate something to the Taylor because he comes usually to his Shop Filliutius reports also another reason in this matter which is never a whit better m Non apparet ulla injustitia in accipiendo illo pretio Revera enim magni refert mercatorem ut sartores potius ad suam officin am veniant quam ad alis Filliutius supra It doth not seem saith he that the Taylor sins against Justice in taking this money which comes by the good pennyworth which the Merchant affords him because the Merchants are greatly concerned that Taylors should rather come to their Shops than to other men's He pretends that because the Merchant finds his advantage therein therefore the Taylor ought also to have his benefit thereof It seems to him reasonable that they divide that which comes of this deceit between them and that the Merchant should give the Taylor that which he hath promised he believes that he is obliged thereto and this is without doubt by the same law that obliges him who hath employed a man to commit a murder to pay the murderer what he had promised him as Layman maintains Also the Taylor may in good conscience receive that which the Merohant gives him upon Filliutius his words who saith n Non apparet ulla injustitia in accipiendo illo pretio that he sees no injustice therein Preoccupation hinders him to see it which yet is not so strong as to take from him altogether the sense thereof for the check of his own conscience makes him
according to the Jesuits and that custom of sinning may make a man uncapable of sinning AS in doing evil we accustom our selves thereunto and in following lusts we cause them to pass into habits which strengthen and increase more the inclination we had unto evil the order of reason requires in the design we have to consider the springs and the principles of sin to make appear how the Jesuits nourish them that after we have treated of Lust we speak also of evil habits I propose for example of habitual sins swearing and blasphemy because these sins of themselves produce neither pleasure nor profit its onely passion which carries men to them and evil custom which nourisheth them So that to speak properly and according to their peculiar nature they are sins of passion and habit Bauny in his summe chap. 4. pag. 60. speaking of a person accustomed to swear who for this reason is always in danger to be forsworn gives this counsel to their Confessours The Confessor to hinder this evil ought to draw from his penitent an act of dislike or to speak better of disavowing this cursed custom For by this means the oaths which follow proceeding from such an habit shall be esteemed involuntary in their cause Suarez l. 3. of Oaths chap. 6 Sanchez in his Summe l. 3. c. 5. n. 11. and by consequence without sin This practice is very easie and very convenient if it be so that one word of disowning sins which a Confessor can draw out of the mouth of a sinner may serve all at once to be a remedy for all the sins which he hath committed and for the justification of all the sins he shall be able to commit for the future by the violence of an evil habit so the simple declaration which a man shall make of his being sorry to see himself subject to such a vice sufficeth to excuse him from all the sins which he shall afterwards commit by that habit which he hath of this vice as the debauches and excesses of the mouth immodest speeches lyes deceits thefts and other such like And so almost all vices of this sort shall be innocent there being few persons that are not sorry for being engaged in them and being unable to avoid them because of their long accustoming themselves unto them or who at least do not or will not sometimes disallow them and testifie some displeasure against them in some good interval And yet if this good Father had been well read in Sanchez whom he cites I am confident he would have been render'd yet more easie and complacent in this point For Sanchez acknowledges no particular sin in Oaths that proceed of an habit though no disavowing them be made to excuse them as Bauny requires See how he speaks herein p Posterior sententia cui tanquam probabiliori accedo ait juramenta prolata sine advertentia formali per se sufficienti ad peccatum mortal non esse in se novum ac proprium ac speciale peccat um propter solam jurandi consuetudinem qualiscumque fit nedum sit retracta Sanchez op mor. part 1. l. 3. c. 5. n. 28. p. 21. The last opinion which I follow as the most probable holds that those Oaths which are made without actual application which of it self were sufficient to a mortal sin are not of themselves new sins properly and particularly onely because of the custom of swearing how great soever it be and though no renunciation or retractation be made of it Escobar is not far off from this opinion where speaking of blasphemy he demands q Num aliquando venialis blasphemia Consuetudo quidem absque advertentia lethale peccatum non facit Escobar tract 1. exam 3. cap. 6. num 28. pag 73. If blasphemy be sometimes a venial sins And he answers absolutely according to his use That such a custom whereof one thinks not at all makes sin not to be mortal But for the most part hinders it from being mortal as it would he if he did swear without being accustomed Filliutius speaks the same more at large and more clearly a Octavo quaero de consuetudine blasphemandi ordine ad malitiam Respendeo dico 1. si desit advertentia plena ca toriatur blasphemia etiamsi adsit consuetudo blasphemandi non commitâ—itur peccatum mortale Filliutius 〈◊〉 qq tom 2 tract 25. cap. 1. num 27. pag 173. It is demanded what sin it is to blaspheme customarily I answer in the first place that when a man blaspames without having full knowledge thereof how much soever he be accustomed thereto he sins not mortally He taken the reason of this conclusion out of a general principle which he presupposeth as assured b Ratio est quia ut diximus de voluntario libero ad â—…ccatum mortale requiritur advertentia plenâ— undecunque oriatur defectus illius excusat a peceato Ibid. The reason is saith he because as we have said handling free and voluntary actions to six mortally it behoves to have a full knowledge for want of which on what account soever it comes sin is thereby bindered He demands in the same place c An jurandi consuâ—tudo constituat hominem in statu peccati If the custom of swearing put a man in the estate of sin First of all he reports the opinion of those who hold the affirmative afterwards he speaks his own in these terms d Dico 2. consuâ—tudinem jurandi sine necessitate vel utilitate sed cum veritate sufficiente advertentia non esse peccatum grave ex se nec constituere hominem in statu peccati mortalis Ibid. cap. 10. n. 313. I say in the second place that the custom of swearing without necessity and without utility but with verity and without sufficient knowledge and reflection is not of it self a great sin and puts not a man into a state of mortal sin He demands again on the same subject e Sitne perjurium cum in advertentia naturali peccatum mortale ob consuetudinem perjurandi Ibid. n. 316. If perjury which one commits through natural inadvertence be a mortal sin because of the custom he hath to forswear And rejecting the opinion of those who believed it to be a mortal sin he answers f Dico 2. Probabilius est non esse peccatum mortale speciale quando est sine advertentia naturali Ibid. I say in the second place that it is more probable that there is no mortal sin particularly when one forsweareth himself without perceiving it at all and by a natural inadvertence And a little after he adds g Etiamsi operans sit cum habituali affectu ad peccatum Ibid. Though he who doth it hath his will effectually addicted to sin by an evil habit So that according to the judgement of this Divine although he swear with full knowledge provided that it be not against truth although he swear against the truth and
the outward decence and composement that such an action requires So the outward appearance will be more necessary to prayer and the actions of Religion then the inward motion of piety since they can subsist without this inward motion but not without the outward shew I wonder that he remember'd not this common maxime of the Schools a Bonum ex integra causa malum antem ex minimo defectu To do good all the good conditions must concurre but the least defect is sufficient unto evil This perhaps might have kept him from concluding so ill and he might have considered that there is more required to do good then to do ill and to an action of Religion then to an action of Idolatry And if to do good all conditions must concurre thereto by much stronger reason the intent which is the principal and as it were the soul of all the rest But Escobar saith yet more then Bauny For he maintains that it is not onely not necessary for satisfying the precept of reciting the office to intend it but also that it is necessarily satisfied in the recital though the intention be expresse and formal not to satisfie it For having demanded b Requiriturne satisfaciendi intentio Alii prohabiliter jam defendunt intentionem ejus necessariam non esse immo satisfierietiam ab co qui cum expressa intentione non saciendi pro tune recitaret eâ—osbar tr 5. exam 6. c. 13. n. 136. p. 677. if an intention to fulfil it be required He answers that many Divines do now hold that it is probable that this intention is not necessary and though in reading the office there even be a formal intent not to satisfie our duty yet we do not fail to fulfil it He saith the same thing concerning an oath in his first Treatise where after he hath said absolutely that to be discharged of a promise made with an Oath it is not necessary to intend it he adds in the sequel that c Addit Lessius l. 1. c. 37. d. 10. n. 59. juram ntum impleri etiam i res jurata praestetur cum animo expresso non satisfaciendi Ibid. tract 1. ex r. c. 7. n. 41. p. 77. Lessius saith moreover that one is discharged of his Oath though in doing what he swore to do he have an expresse intent not to fulfil it That is to say that we may satisfie promises made unto God with an oath in performing outwardly that which we have promised though we have a formal will not to fulfil but to elude it Lessius alledges for reason of this opinion that when God or the Church commands us any thing the action onely is commanded us and not the intention The reason is saith he because that which is commanded us is not for example to hear masse with intent to accomplish the precept but simply to attend the Masse with attention and devotion which is performed though it be done with design not to accomplish the precept So that according to this marvellous Divinity we may hear the Masse with attention and devotion though we have a formal design not to obey the Church and to despise its commandment They must have a strange Idea of devotion who believe that it can subsist with so great impiety Layman talks more openly and more boldly then the rest He saith not onely with them that it is not needful that we have a will to obey the Church in observing her commandments and that we may do them though we contemn her in our heart but also that we may accomplish her commands by doing ontwardly that which she command though we have an intention directly opposite to hers See his words d Si aliquis jejunet vanae gloriae causa aut 〈…〉 〈…〉 is Ecclesiasticum jejunii praeceptum non violat Layman r. 1. tract 4. c 4 n. 6. p. 49. If a man fast for vain glory or to content his sensuality in eating and drinking Wine and so act contrary to the intent of the Church yet he doth not violate her commands And a little after He that doth in substance that is to say outwardly that which is commanded satisfies truly the commandment though he have no will to accomplish it but rather contrary I know not what Father or Master would be content with such obedience and that would not take it rather for true disobedience accompanied with contempt and thereby much greater and more offensive then if by simple negligence that had been omitted which was commanded The same Author repeats the example of him who fasted for gluttony and he adds that of a child who hears Masse by force and constraint of which he speaks thus f Sed quid dicendum est st metus verberum sit puero causa principalis audiendi Missam die festo ita ut expressam intentionem habeat non audiendi si paedagogus abesset â— Et similis ratio est si oblectatiopiscium sit causa principa is jejunandi ita ut si tam boni pisces non haberentur nellet quis jejunium servare Respondeo tamen talem implere totum opus quod ab Ecclesia praecipitur Ibid. n. 12. p. 51. But what shall we say of a child that goes to hear Masse on a Festival day principally for fear of whipping and who hath an expresse will not to hear it if his Master were not with him the same question respects him also who is induced to fast principally to satisfie the desire he hath to eat fish so that if he could not have got good fish he was resolved not to fast I answer that this notwithstanding they both fulfil the Churches command Filliutius saith in a manner the same thing concerning the precept of hearing Masse on Festival days and Lords days g Prava intentio adjuncta voluntati audiendi Missiam ut aspiciendi foâ—min as libidinose dummodo sit sufficiens aetenlio non est contraria praceptâ— quare satisfacit Filliutius mor. qq tom 2. tract §. c. 7. m 212. p. 128. A bad intent saith he joyned to that of hearing Masse as an intent of looking on women dishonestly c. is not contrary to the commandment For this cause he who hears with this intent fulfils it provided he be sufficiently attentive e Qâ—i 〈…〉 secundum subflantiam praestat etiamsi non babeat valuntatem implendi praeceptum immo contrariam habeat revera satisfacit Ibid. n. 7. Escobar is of the same judgement For speaking of a man who goes to Church with an intention to hear Masse he saith h Non obest alia prava intentio ut aspiciendi libidinose foeminas priori conjuncta Escobar tr 1. exam 11. c. 3. n. 31. p. 180. that another wicked intent as to behold women immodestly joyned to the first hinders not But Layman after all this which we have above reported from him concludes thus i Quare cum opus quod praecipitur impleas etsi per
favour with God As if the commandments of God and the sin of those who violate them depended on the disposition or will of man and as if those who were offended together with God in the same action which was committed against him and against his Law by releasing their interest and remitting the fault which is committed against them could also as speedily take away and blot out that which is against God and against his Law principally when he that hath committed it doth not take the pains to ask him pardon nor to give him satisfaction If it be true as saith Bauny that children sin not mortally in taking the goods of their Fathers and Mothers why say they not also that they should not sin mortally in attempting their lives also For the reason they bring for the one proves it as well of the other His reason is that parents cannot be thought to oblige their children not to attempt upon what is theirs under this pain of mortal sin and eternal damnation and we may as well believe that they are not to be thought to desire to oblige them not to enterprize upon their lives on the same pain it being apparent that if Fathers were true Christians as they suppose them to be they would rather like to see not onely all their goods wasted by their childrens hands but their own lives lost also rather then see their children in disgrace with God or in eternal pains By this same reason by which they go about to excuse the theft of children it will follow that the wicked persecuting honest men Tyrants spilling the blood of Martyrs the Jews in putting to death Jesus Christ sinned not mortally because it is certain that neither Jesus Christ nor the Martyrs nor honest men ever had an intention that those who invaded their goods their honor or their lives should fall into displeasure with God or into eternal damnation On the contrary there is nothing that they would not do and suffer to hinder them there from as may be seen clearly in that the Saints and Martyrs prayed unto God to pardon them that persecuted them following herein the example of Jesus Christ who prayed upon the Crosse for those who put him to death and demanded of his Father that he would not impute unto them the sin of his death CHAP. V. Of the matter of Sin ARTICLE I. That the Jesuits enhanse and debase as they please the goods of this world which are the usual object or matter of sin and so nourish vice and dispense with the Law of God THe object and the matter of sin are temporal things which God having made for man that he might imploy them for his service he turns them into a stumbling block by taking occasion of offending and destroying himself thereby by suffering himself to be surprized by the pleasure which he finds therein or making use of them otherwise then God hath ordained The Jesuits are wont to judge of sin by its object and to measure its greatness by the quantity of the matter and by the value of the things which induce men to commit it I will not examine this principle the defect whereof is easie to be perceived But I am confident that there is none that will not finde it very strange that they having established this rule which ought by consequence be always inviolable amongst them they yet do not follow it themselves but do like those who have two different weights and measures setting what price they please upon temporal goods making them sometimes much and sometimes little worth according to the divers designs they have to gratifie the passions and lusts of men They debase worldly goods to excuse the sins of those who usurpe them unjustly and they enhanse their price and represent them as very considerable for to dispense with the Law of God when we cannot observe it without suffering some losse and some diminution in these very goods It is upon these principles and with this spirit that Bauny in his Summe chap. 7. pag. 80. after he had described envie as a monstrous vice which sits saith he like the Cantharides onely on the fairest flowers after he had said with Saint Cyprian that it is as it were the worm of the soul which makes its own hurt of anothers good and after he had declared universally that the envious man engaged not a little his conscience and honour since against all sorts of prudence by a Metamorphosis altogether vicious he attempts to change good into evil and good and wholesome actions into poison nevertheless he concludes in this sort this sin though Saint Augustin testifies that it is contrary unto charity nevertheless seems not to me to be mortal Although envie be so pernicious and deformed as he represents it though it be like the worm that consumes the soul and ruines the conscience like venim which corrupts good actions and turns good into ill though it be contrary unto charity as Saine Cyprian and Saint Augustin say and as he himself avows with them yet it seems not to him that it is a mortal sin and if we will believe him it ought not be put into the number of the seven mortal sins His reason is because the good which is found in temporal things is so slender and of so little consequence in respect of Heaven that it is of no consideration with God and his Saints By the same reason we may say that theft slander and even homicide it self are no mortal sins because that the goods which are withheld from our Neighbour by theft the honour we violate by slander and his very life which we cause him lose by homicide are all temporals in which the good that is found is so small and of so little consequence in respect to Heaven that it is of no consideration with God and his Saints and by consequence could not be matter of mortal sin according to the Divinity of this Father nor a sufficient subject to put man out of favour with God See here how this Author debases the price and estimation of temporal goods to excuse sin But when he hath in hand to dispense with men for their duty and the Law of God then he enhanseth their price to cause that lust may prevail with us above the Law of God on those occasions wherein to obey and keep it we must suffer some losse in these goods In the 46. Chap. of his Summe pag. 711 after he had established the conditions necessary to a penitent to be in an estate to receive absolution he proposes many questions whereof see here the first From these principles saith he it will be easie to answer the questions which follow The first those who in their commerce their traffick their discourse their resort are obliged to see to speak to treat with maidens and women whose sight and meeting makes them oftentimes fall into sin If they I say are capable in this perpetual danger of being in
sapiant quia minores vocantur Lactant. lib. 2 divin instit c. 8. These deprive themselves of wisdom who suffer themselves to be led by others like Beasts receiving without discerning all that which the ancients have invented That Which deceives them is the name of Ancestors Imagining that they cannot be Wiser then they because they come after them and because these are called neoteriques And in the same place l Deus dedit omnibus pro virili portionem sapientiae nec quia nos illi temporibus sapientia quoque antecesserunt Quia si omnibus aequaliter datur occupari ab antecedentibus non potest Ibid. God hath given wisdom to every man according to his capacity and those who precede us in time do not therefore exceed us in wisdom For being it is given indifferently to all men they who came first cannot by their possession eject others from it He considered not when he alledged these passages that what these Authors say is for reproof of those who suffer themselves to be carried with humane customs and traditions to the prejudice of manifest truth or who are too credulous and timorous in the inquiry after natural things which depend on reason and that they speak not of matters of Faith and Religion such as those are which he handles in his Book But if he have perceived this truth he abuses the authority of these great personages applying it against their sence and using it without reason to justifie a thing quite remote from their thoughts and contrary to their judgements and from that of all antiquity which were easie to be made appear if it were not a thing too remote from my subject He alledges also these words which he attributes to the Council of Constantinople m Beatus qui prosert verbum inauditum id est novum Syn. Const art 1. Happy is that man who produces an unheard word that is a now one Finally he cites those words of the holy Scripture n Omnis scriba doctus similis est patrifamilias qui profert de thesauro suo nova vettra Matth. 13. ver 53. every learned Doctor is like unto a Father of a Family who brings out of his treasure things new and old I passe by this last passage of the Gospel of Saint Matthew which he abuseth manifestly against the sence of the Son of God and that of all interpreters But I cannot passe over the remarkable falsity and visible corruption of the pretended words of the Council of Constantinople For the true words of the Council are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium Blessed is he who utters a word into obedient ears From which he first cuts off the word obedientium obedient Afterwards he joins two words into one and instead of in auditum in to the hearing which were the Councils words he makes it say inauditum unheard In the third place adding corruption of sence unto falsification of words he saith that this word inauditum signifies new But there is no cause to marvel that the desire of novelty leads to falsity and consequently to errours and heresies Azor and after him Filliutius who doth nothing in effect but follow him speak also very advantagiously for novelty saying generally that the Apostolical Traditions are of humane right and that by consequence they may be changed o Ex quo officitur ut traditiones divinae ad â—us divinum specteat ac proinde sunt immutabiles Apostolicae vero ad jus humanum propterea Ecclesiae authoritate mut abiles Azor Instit mor. l. 8. c. 4. q. 4. pag. 743. Filliutius tom 2. tr 22. c. 1. n. 11. p. 65. Divine Traditions saith Azor appertain to Divine right and by consequence they are immutable but the Traditions of the Apostles are humane Laws and for that cause the Churoh may change them He expounds a little above what he means by Divine and Apostolical Traditions in these terms p Divinae traditiones sunt quaâ— ab ipsius Christi ore Apostoli acceperunt vel quas Spiritu Sancto dictante vel gubernante vel Christo Domino imperante promulgarunt Apostolicae sunt qu as ipsi Apostoli tanquam Ecclesiae Praelati Doctores magistri recto es instituerunt Azor. Ibid. Divine Traditions are those which the Apostles have learned from the mouth of Jesus Christ or which the Holy Ghost hath dictated and they have written by his Command or by that of Jesus Christ The Traditions of the Apostles are those which the Apostles have instituted in the quality of Prelats Doctors Tutors and Governours of the Church In such manner that according to them the Traditions of the Apostles are no other then the Inventions of the Apostles which they ordained of themselves and of their own proper motion without having learned them of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit This is no more then his words clearly signifie and the division he makes suffers not any other sence to be given them since he opposes those Traditions which the Apostles have instituted of themselves quas ipsi Apostoli instituerunt to those which they have received from the mouth of Jesus Christ and from those which the Holy Ghost taught them and which he established by their Ministry quas ab ipsius Christi ore Apostoli receperunt vel quas Spiritu Sancto dictante jubente vel Christo Domino imperante promulgarunt He makes then of these two sorts of Traditions as it were two opposite members dividing Traditions into Divine and Humane or Apostolical He calls the first Divine because they draw their original from God and his Spirit who hath instituted them the Apostles having onely published them by his motion and order he affirms that the other are humane and of humane right ad jus humanum spectant because according to him they proceed from an humane spirit and not from Gods and that the Apostles who were men instituted them and are become their Fathers and Authors If it be true as he faith that the Apostles have made these rules in the Church whether concerning faith or manners and that they have not received them from Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost he hath reason to say that the constitutions and traditions which he terms Apostolical are onely of humane right because they take their original and their authority from the spirit of man and which by consequence may be changed by men and it may follow also from the same principle that they are subject unto errour the spirit of a man how holy soever it be may always deceive him when he is the Author and original of his thoughts and actions It will follow thence also that the Apostles have governed the Church as Princes and Politicians govern their estates and their common wealths by their wit and reason It would follow likewise that the Church is not governed by the Spirit of Jesus Christ being they who first governed it and
our Fathers that he might set them in their place If it be true then that we ought to take the ancients for the rule of faith onely and not of works the faith which we receive from them will be dead and barren and if the moderns give us onely the rules of manners without those of Faith our life how good soever it appear would be no other then Heathen And if it be pretended that with the rules of manners they give us also them of faith whether they take them from the ancients or make them themselves as they do those of manners to give them us we are more obliged to them then the ancients or rather we hold all of them without having any need of the ancients we receive good life vertue holiness from those who are no Saints and we hold nothing from the Saints from whom we receive onely a dead faith a Faith of Devils as Saint Augustin speaks according to Scripture And to speak truth the children of the Church receive not their life of the Fathers of the Church and are not their children but of the Fathers of this World and Divines of the last times Celot is not contented to follow Reginaldus in this point but he speaks of himself for novelty against antiquity with a sleightness and contempt unsufferable a Quid agas Sic se habent humana omnia vixerunt moribus suis antiqui nos nostris Utri melius Câ—lot in praef l. 5. p. 240. What shall we do saith he all humane affairs are thus the ancients lived after their rules and we after ours And who shall tell us which are the better He acknowledges that which is too true we now live in a manner quite different from that of the ancients and of the Holy Fathers and this is that which should oblige us to address our selves rather unto them then unto the moderns to learn to regulate our manners and to live Christian-like For as in all sorts of professions we seek the best Masters to instruct us so it is clear that those who have lived holily and who are acknowledged for Saints in the Church are more proper to teach holiness and Christian life then they that are no Saints as all the new Divines are not to say no more of them There is none but Celot who seems not willing to confess that the ancients are better then the moderns in saying that we know not whether their conduct and rules be better then that of the moderns But he should at least have considered that we may well sometimes give the moderns the name of Fathers but not of Saints and that by the Holy Fathers we understand always the ancients so that as well the publick voice of the Church as that of the Society it self suffices to convince the blindness of his Pride But he is not content to equal himself and his to the Holy Fathers and ancient Religious who lived in the primitive times of the Church in a holiness and purity altogether extraordinary he hath also the confidence to preferre himself in these strange terms b Inique de nostro saeculo judicarunt qui nostratum Religiosorum mores ex antiquorum factis expendunt ut quod illi faciendum sibi committendumve censuerunt hoc nos confestim pro vo luntate amplexemur aut fugiamus Plane ut si qu is maturi ae â—i hominem ad pueritâ—…m redire compellat quoniam in illo aetatulae slore vinulum clegantulum nounihil habebat quod matri arrideret Celot Ibid. They do wrong saith he to our age who would judge of the life of the Religious of our times by that of the ancients in such sort that what the ancients have believed themselves to be obliged to do or to avoid we ought also to command or forbid Without other reason then because the ancients have ordained it this is as it were to desire them to return to their infancy who are at maturity of age because that in their first years they had somewhat of pleasant and pretty which flattered the eyes of their Mother He could not have discovered himself more nor testifyed more contempt of these great Saints and first Religious then to compare the moderns to men grown ripe and perfect and the ancients to infants who have nothing at all of solid but onely a prettiness proper to content the easiness and foolish affection of women Whence it follows we are no more to consider the ancient Fathers then as children in regard of the moderns who must be the venerable Fathers of the Fathers themselves and by consequence they can be no longer their disciples since it belongs to perfect men to instruct children and not children to instruct men It seems that it is in this same sence that Celot speaking of Saint Paul the first Eremite of Saint Anthony and many other Saints who imitated them in flying the corruption of the world and retiring into the Desart to serve God there he saith that the Church hath rather tolerated then approved those great personages and their manner of life altogether Holy and Evangelical c Alios tulit potius quam expresse probavit Ecclesia homines seculi fastidio amore Dei incitatos statim cursu in solitudinem se abdentes ut sanctum Paulum ut in primis annis sanctum Antonium alios ab Augustino memoratos Celor l. 5. c. 4. p. 257. The Church saith he rather tolerated then approved formally those who being pressed on by the love of God and contempt of the World retired as it were in haste and went to hide themselves in the wildernesse as Saint Paul and Saint Anthony in the first ages and others of whom Saint Augustin speaks We tolerate onely that which is evil or disorderly which comes always from evil or weaknesse This Jesuit therefore must accuse these great Saints of the one or the other and that their actions which were all holy passe in bis mind for disorders or defects if it be true that the Church did tolerate them onely as he saith and not approve them But she could not give them a greater approbation then by Canonizing them and declaring them Saints for that Angelical and admirable life which they led in the Wilderness as also the Church testifies at this day publickly in its office and its mysteries and all the great personages of the Church the Holy Bishops the Popes and the Doctors have published their praises out-vying as it were one another through all ages of Christianity and Celot perhaps is the first amongst Catholicks that hath had the boldness to debase and dispraise them But this contempt and insolence will appear yet more unworthy and unsufferable when he compares them to those who lived in the first ages of the world of whom the Poets speak as of savages and beasts living without Laws without politie and without conduct in such manner that those who came after being formed and regulated by the
absolution which doth more effectually condemn Cruel and dreadful charity which casts a Soul into Hell for fear of offending against carnal prudence and the interessed complacency of wicked Confessors The same proposes another case He supposes an Usurer to have many times promised his Confessor to make restitution and hath always deceived him He falls sick and seeing himself in danger of death he makes again the same promises but without setting upon the duty of restitution though he have means and may do it at that very same hour He asks what ought the Confessor do in this extremity And he answers 6 Si esset in articulo mortis etsi praestat non absolvere nisi restituat cum possit tamen ad id non tenetur Confessarius modo sit illi probabile haeredes id facturos Filliut t. 2. qq mor. tr 34. cap. 8. num 155. pag. 549. That the man being at the point of death though it were better not to absolve him if he do not first make restitution according to his ability yet the Confessor is not obliged hereunto provided that he probably believes that his heirs will do it It is by this Maxime then men are absolved daily and all sorts of persons deceived at the point of death and during life in such manner as astonishes and offends all honest persons For to what use to a dead Usurer is the restitution made by his Heirs if he had no will to do it himself and how can it be said that he had a will to do it if he would not do it when he might easily and it was only his own fault Certainly as the Confession which his Heirs should make for him would be unprofitable to him if he were not willing to confess himself before death when he might so the restitution made by them would be unprofitable for him if he had no will to do it himself when he might without difficulty And the Confessor that relyeth on what the Heirs will do though it be uncertain whether they will do it or not seeing he contents himself with a simple probability modo sit illi probabile haeredes id facturos and distrusts not the will of the dying man though it be clear visible testifies evidently that he cares no more for the conscience and the Salvation of the sinner than for the holiness of the Sacrament and that he subjects and abandons both to the complacence of men and the interests which engaged him thereunto Sanchez having put the question whether absolution ought to be given to persons who by their negligence and fault knew not the Mysteries and things necessary to Salvation first relates the opinion of Azor in these terms 1 Quod si semel it erum admoniti sunt discere potuere ac proinde culpa non liberentur ait absolutionem adhuc der egandam non esse dummodo praeteritae negligentiae eos poeniteat firmiter proponunt fore ut discant Sanchez oper mor. l. 2. c. 3. n. 21. pag. 92. When they have been advertised once or twice and they have been able to learn that which they know not and by consequent cannot be exempt from fault he holds that absolution cannot be denied them nevertheless provided they repent of their past negligence and take a firm resolution to cause themselves to be therein instructed But he after gives his advice and concludes yet more favourably and more generally saying 2 Et quidem in praxi existimo nunquam aut rarissimè denegandam absolutionem ob doctrinae Christianae ignorantiam Ibid. I believe that in the practice we may seldom or never deny absolution because of ignorance of the Doctrine of Christianity This would also be without all reason and against all manner of Justice if the Confessor should be so rash as to refuse absolution since that Tambourin saith after Azor and Vasquez 3 Vel ex rudibus supponuntur inculpabiliter non advertere ad tale onus Tamb. n. 3. sect 1. cap. 5. lib. 3. meth confess If the Penitent be a blockish person not knowing that he was hereunto obliged his ignorance is without fault And to make it appear that the answer of these Fathers is universal and that they except no Mysteries how necessary soever they may be unto Salvation 4 Instar omnium sit Sa verbo fides qui sic habet necesse esse explicitè credere fidei mysteria quae publicè in Ecclesia celebrantur sentiunt multi cum S. Thoma alii excusari multos ignorantia num 4. Tambourin testifies unto us that Sa extends it unto the Mysteries that are publickly exercised in the Church and which St. Thomas hath assured us ought to be believed explicitely And Sanchez proposes unto us the case of a man who at the point of death is entirely ignorant of the things which appertain to Religion and Faith and noting out to a Confessor what he ought to do and how he ought to carry himself towards him he saith 5 Satis est si ei proponantur à Confessario ea raysteria quae tenetur explicitè credere necessitate medii seu finis ut sunt mysteria Trinitatis Incarnationis ut vel sic actum ea explicitè credendi eliciat Ibid. num 23. pag. 93. That it is enough that the Confessor propose unto him the things which he is to believe formally as means absolutely necessary to Salvation such as are the Mysteries of the Trinity and that of the Incarnation to the end that they may believe them actually at the least in this manner That is to say that it is sufficient for him to make him say that he believes without knowing either what these Mysteries are or what it is the Confessor saith to him and the reason why he ought not say more unto him is 6 In eo enim statu non ita volet aeger ut procurando eum addiscere desatigandus sit Ibid. Because the sick is not in an estate to endure to be put to more trouble in endeavouring to instruct him Sanchez speaks of a man that is at the point of death and when he saith that it is to no end to importune and put him to trouble in instructing him in what is necessary to his Salvation he would not say that we were to fear to increase his sickness or to shorten his life because that is desperate and in extremity but only to disquiet him and that we ought to let him dye pleasantly and fall more pleasantly into Hell preferring in such manner his convenience and ease to the Salvation of his Soul and chusing rather to suffer it to be exposed to eternal pains than to give him a slight trouble of a quarter of an hour Such is the prudence and charity of these Divines ARTICLE IV. Of Satisfaction That the Divinity of the Jesuits destroys this part of Penance IF the Jesuits be very indulgent to the pride of men as we have already
dare not express openly and which yet is comprehended in what he saith that they pass their time in an employment altogether vicious Though he concludes not for the affirmative yet for all that he testifies sufficiently that it rather shame and fear of men that hinders him from declaring himself and he makes it well appear that he is not far off from this opinion in that he contents not himself only to report and propose it as probable and to say that we may follow and advise it with a safe conscience which is truly to approve it but he approves it yet more formally by supporting it with all the reasons he can See here how he talks Because we are not assured of the intention of the Church and that the Texts of c. 1. de Cler. non res ...... of c. Licet 32. of the title de Prebend make no mention save of their assistance in the Quire and because the custom every where received exacts of the Chanons no other thing that they may receive their dividends but that they be present I esteem them without blame and reproach who in favour of their Penitents hold this second opinion Here are four reasons to be observed upon which he concludes that they are not reproachable who maintain that the Chanons satisfie their duty as far as the Church obligeth them therein and earn their dividends by assisting in the Quire with irreverence and that even outward also by laughing scoffing and spending their time in employments altogether vicious 1. Because it is enough that they are present 2. Because the custom every where received requires no other thing of them 3. Because this opinion is favourable to Penitents The Jews and Pagans themselves who have any knowledge of God will perhaps be ashamed to speak in this sort and to say that we may pray to him and serve him in so prophane and unworthy a manner His fourth reason is because we are not assured saith he of the intention of the Church It is apparent that he hath taken this reason from Filliutius who to confirm the opinion which he holds that whatsoever voluntary distractions we can have in prayer and in the divine Office there is therein no more than venial sin makes use of this very same reason For after he had brought for proof of this opinion 1 Quia satis accommodata est hominum sragilitati difficultati quam humanus intellectus experitur in attendendo diu uni rei that it is sufficiently accommodate to mens frailty and to the difficulty of holding the spirit of man a long time attentive to one object he adds 2 Verisimile est autem Ecclesiam noluisse suo praecepto obligate ad rem ardusm ita ut major hominum pars eam servare non possit Filliut tom 2. mor. qq tract 23. c. 8. num 253. pag. 126. That for this cause it is likely that the Church had no intention by its precept to oblige men to a thing so difficult that the greatest part of men cannot observe He would say that when the Church commands the faithful to pray unto God and to the Ecclesiasticks to recite the divine Office and to both of them to be assistant at Massâ—on Festival days we are not assured that it sorbids voluntary distractions and wicked thoughts wherewith they voluntarily please themselves we are not assured that it would that we should at least demean our selves with some outward reverence or whether indeed 〈◊〉 have not left to all a liberty to laugh sâ—…ff and pass their time in scandalous discourse and in an employment altogether vicious Now if these Jesuits had said as some of their Fraternity that the Church had not power to forbid the greatest part of these things which respect the thoughts though their opinion had been false it had for all that been less criminal and less injurious to the Church For to say that it cannot command us to pray to God with reverence and attention is to hurt its Authority but to say that it is not its intention or that it would not or only to doubt whether having power it would and whether it desires we should bear that reverence and attention which God demands in prayer is to violate its Holiness to give it an intention far distant from that of God to deny that it is guided by the Spirit and to make it accomptable for all the crimes which are committed in this kind because having power it forbids them not as Filliutius and Bauny suppose For otherwise it were in vain that they should trouble themselv es to know its intention and will in a point which depends not at all on its will But though there were some one to be found who might doubt of this or who of gross ignorance knew not the intention of the Church in this matter it is not lawful for Father Bauny to make use of this pretence to favour an opinion which leads unto Libertinism and Irreligion and we need not seek more clear testimony to destroy this errour than his own since he declares in Chap. 20. of his Sum pag. 332. That being true devotion is in the heart and not in the carriage or without in the fashion and other outward gesture and that this pretended devotion without is but a vizor and an Idol of devotion it is a resolved case that in the voluntary distraction and wandring of the mind in praying by obligation as do Priests Deacons and Subdeacons and Beneficiaries there is sin and so they are obliged to repeat the Office which they have said with so great indevotion For the will of the Church is that by this action which it commands them they should praise and pray unto God their Creator And do they this whilst they have nothing less during their singing than God before their eye They ought then to fulfil their duty begin the Office again and in default thereof if they be Beneficiaries they are bound to restore either to the Church where their Benefice is or to the poor the fruits they have received according to the rate of their omissions as may be collected from the Bull of Pius V. He pursues the same matter and declares once more in the same place what is the intention of the Church in the Command which it give Ecclesiasticks and Beneficiaries to recite the Office The Church intends not saith he to make the Ecclesiasticks Possessors of the fruits of their said Benefice if they earn it not by their labour The disposure thereof is conditional if they perform the prayers with which they are charged doing them to the praise and honour of God And can we say with truth that they deserve to be his servants or put into the rank of those who render him the worship which his Majesty requires of them when they have their lips only occupied in his service and not their heart because it is filled with unprofitable thoughts and very remote from
the greatness of his Majesty to whom they speak pag. 333. He had already said the same thing in Chap. 13. pag. 165. where he makes of it a conclusion promoting it not only as his opinion but also as a manifest and certain thing 2. Saith he The said Beneficiaries are obliged to make restitution of the fruits received from their Benefices when they say their hours but imperfectly with voluntary distraction which endures throughout the whole Office or the greater part thereof And after he had cited many Authors who are of this opinion he gives this reason for it Because that not to recite their hours at all or to do it indecently with out respect attention and reverence is all one before God since he is equally despised and dishonoured in both pag. 165. Can we speak more clearly or more absolutely on this subject It is a resolved case saith he that prayer which is made without attention is but a vizor and an Idol of devetion that the Ecclesiasticks and Beneficiaries who recite the Office with voluntary wandring and distraction of mind are obliged to begin it anew and in default of doing this they are bound to restore the fruits received that the will of the Church is that by this action which it commands them they should praise and pray unto their Creator That the Church doth not intend to make the said Ecclesiasticks Possessors of the fruits of their said Benefices but on the condition that they pray unto God praise and honour him that they honour him not at all but rather dishonour and contemn him when they have only their lips occupied in his service and not their hearts because it is filled with unprofitable thoughts Who would not say after this that this Father is so perswaded of these things that he holds them almost for Articles of Faith or at least for indubitable truths whereto the whole world ought to consent And who would believe that he could say at the same time That we are not assured of the intention of the Church upon the same things that he could imagine that they were without reproach and blame who hold that Beneficiaries and Chanons satisfie their duties and earn their dividends who assisting in the Quire during the holy Service pass their time in scandalous discourse and in an employment altogether vicious as in langhing scoffing c. To which of the two opinions of this Jesuit ought we to hold or rather how shall we know which is his opinion what he saith and what he thinks He saith all and he saith nothing because he unsays and contradicts himself He is of what opinion you please and he is of none But if mens last words be more considerable than their first and if we may rely on them as their last resolution there is cause to believe that this Father hath related so clearly the judgment and intention of the Church concerning the abuse of those who pray and recite the Office without intention and without respect only to overturn it and to testifie the little account he makes of it because he hath confidence a little after to say that we may prudently presume that it was not the will of the Church to oblige Priests Beneficiaries and others to the divine Office with so great severity that they sin mortally if they have not an inward attention thereunto since it seems not in its precept for reciting the hours to erect any other thing of the Priests and others who are bound thereunto but to honour and praise God which they do in singing Psalms and chaunting though with voluntary distraction and in which they continue provided that this be done and they sing tunably and with reverence pag. 534. But the Argument he makes and the Example he brings to establish his Discourse and to confirm this strange Opinion is remarkable For the outward action saith he wherewith we attend on God is of the Diocess and an appurtenance of the vertue of Religion Wherefore as he who without intention to commit Idolatry bends his knee before an Idol is held for an Idolater nevertheless so we must believe that they pray who recite the Office though without intention yet not without outward decency and composure such as that action requires pag. 335 Coninck makes use of the same Reasoning and the same Example in this same matter as we have seen above and there is cause to believe that Father Bauny hath only copied and translated him but the one and the other ought to have called to mind that it is much easier to do harm than good and that what is evil in it self is always evil to what intention soever it be done But to do good it is not sufficient to do a thing which is good in it self if it be not well done that is with good intention according to this Rule Bona bene agenda The Reasoning which Father Bauny takes up at length upon this Point is as false and ridiculous as his Example And that this is true saith he may be collected from this that it imports not a little to the glory of God that we address our selves to him with outward respect which edifies the people and obtains his favours from Heaven whereto prayers are useful though said without attention We need not seek Reasons to make appear the extravagance of these words it is sufficient to make it known to represent what the same Jesuit pusht on by the force of the truth saith Chap. 16. pag. 165. That not to recite the hours at all and not to do it decently is all one before God since he is equally dishonoured and contemned in both After he hath advanced these so strange Maxims which overturn Religion and Prayer which is as it were the first-fruits and most common exercise thereof and after he hath established these Maxims by such Reasons and such Examples he draws from thence practical Conclusions as pernicious which he bestows on Confessors and Directors to serve them as a Rule in the conduct of Souls and in the resolution of all doubts and difficulties which may be proposed unto them in this matter According hereunto saith he the Confessor shall not reprove his Penitent as for any mortal fault for having applied his mind to frivelous things so long as his tongue resounded the praises of God with others in the Church if in outward appearance he did nothing that was incompatible with this action pag. 335. He shall not oblige him to the repetition of any thing said in that manner since in pronouncing them in that sort he hath fulfilled the precept nor yet to make restitution of the fruits received from his Benefice if he have any Which very thing he himself condemns but two pages before saying That Ecclesiasticks who pray with voluntary distraction and wandring minds ought for the performance of their duty begin their Office anew and in default of so doing if Beneficiaries they are bound to restore unto the Church where
spirit and in his heart though it were easie for him to do it if he would they content themselves if he say Amavi Mariam toto mense toto anno I have loved Mary a whole month a whole year But if he also startle at Penance they will give him so slight an one that he cannot refuse it they will even leave him to his choice if it be needful and they will remit him to do his Penance in the other world After this they must wholly renounce all devotion who will not go to confess themselves to the Jesuits and it seems that he who refuses can have no other pretence then to say that he hath no devotion and he may adde that he cannot have any for Confession as the Jesuits represent it and that he cannot believe that he confesses himself as he ought if he confess as they say he may But after all this though one will not be devout if he be a Catholick he must at least confess himself at Easter that thereupon he may communicate the Command of the Church is express and to fail herein were to decry and declare himself to be a man of no Religion The Jesuits have therefore provided for this also they have made the observation of this Precept so easie that the most debauched and most impious may discharge this duty according to them without being obliged not only to change their lives but to interrupt the course of their debauches for the time only while they go to Church and return after they have presented themselves to a Priest to whom they may tell only what they please of their sins and do also what they list of all that he saith to them For it is a common opinion amongst these Doctors that we may satisfie the Command which ordains that we should at least confess our selves once a year by any manner of Confession whatsoever it be provided that we can say that it is a Confession though it be a Sacriledge They say the same thing of the Communion and hold that we may satisfie the Command of the Church in communicating unworthily and receiving the Body of Jesus Christ after we have confessed in the manner now related or without any Confession at all though we believe we are in mortal sin and over-run with crimes But because I shall handle these two Points in their proper place expounding the Commandments of the Church according to the Maxims of the Jesuits I will not speak thereof here at all and I will rest satisfied only in representing some of the dispositions with which they hold that we may communicate worthily and receive the fruit of the Communion They grant indeed that our conscience must not be charged with any crime but they hardly require any thing farther It is from this Principle that Filliutius speaking of dispositions for this Sacrament saith at first that we ought to be in a state of Grace and free from mortal sin but in the sequel he declares that there needs no other preparation 1 Non requititur autem necessaâ—iò pein ò actualis devoâ—io First saith he it is not necessary to have actual devotion Whence he draws this consequence 2 Ex quo etiam colligitur voluntariè distrctum secluso co temptu quia culpa non est mortalis non ponere oblcem Filliut tom 1. mor. qq tr 4. c. 6. n. 163.164 pag. 87. That he who is voluntarily distracted in the Sacrament provided be contemns it not puts no obstacle to the effect of the Communion because he sins not mortally Supposing there is nothing but mortal sin alone which makes a man indisposed for the Communion and to receive the effect of the Eucharist He adds a little after 3 Non requititur carentia peccati venialis Ibid. That it is not also necessary to be without venial sin whatsoever it may be even voluntary wherewith one actually and deliberately imploys himself at the holy Table and when even after he hath received the Body of Jesus Christ and holds it yet in his mouth instead of adoring it he dishonours and offends him expresly by some venial sin whereunto he casts himself at that very season this shall not be incompatible with the Communion and shall not give any stop to its effect according to this Jesuit 4 Dâ—actusli pâ—ccato ve nali quod comiâ—…tur ipsam communionem etiam probatur non ponere ob cem quia tale peccatum non facit indigâ—un Ibid. n. 165. As to actual sin saith he which is committed in the very Communion it self it hinders not at all from receiving the Grace of the Communion because this sin makes not the person unworthy of the participation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because according to him there is nothing but mortal sin that is capable of causing this unworthiness He may say by the same reason that he who should be so rude as of meer humour to jostle the King and lose all the respect he owes him whilst he fits with him at his Table should not thereby render himself by this insolence unworthy of the honour which he had done him or that a Child who was resolved to do his Father all the displeasure he could and should actually do it Parricide only excepted should not be so unworthy but that he might receive him to his Table and give him the utmost testimonies of paternal affection For this is in effect that which he maintains when he declares that there is nothing but mortal sin which renders a man indisposed for the Communion and that no venial sin though voluntary nor even that which is purposely committed whilst the Body of Jesus Christ is actually received can render him who commits it unworthy of the Communion nor of the fruit of the Grace which it confers he thinks also that be hath found a good reason to support his opinion when he saith 5 Alioquin talis peccaret mortaliteâ— quia qui indigne suscipit judicium sibi manducat b.bit. Ibid. That otherwise he who communicates in this disposition sins mortally because he who receives unworthily the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ eats and drinks his own damnation As if we could not communicate unworthily without sinning mortally This is on one side too rigorous to think that all indispositions in the Communion should be mortal and on the other side too large to believe that all sorts of venial sins even voluntary and affected should not be indispositions to this Sacrament All that which renders the stomach incapable of receiving food or of digesting it is not mortal and yet though the food received in this estate kills not the person yet it ceases not to weaken him and to cause in him those diseases which sometimes bring him to his end But foreseeing that it might be justly objected unto him that his opinion is universally condemned by the Holy Fathers and Councils there where they represent the great
sufficiently its intent and the thoughts of the Council of Trent upon this Point in the Ceremonies which it prescribes and would have observed in the Betrothing for the Publication of the Bains he saith 3 Praeceptum de denuntiationibus non obligat quando ex illius observatlone notabile damnum sequitur Quaprepter in talibus occasionibus nulla requiritur dispensatio etiamsi ordinatius poffet commode adiri sitque paratus dispensationem concedere non solum quando est certum sed etiam quando est probabilis suspicio Ibid. disp 3. dub 27. num 212. That we are not obliged to observe them when any notable damage would follow thereupon that we are not obliged to demand a dispensation though we might conveniently demand it of the Ordinary and he were ready to grant it That this is not only lawful then when the damage is certain but also when we have some probable suspicion The Order of the Church for the Bains is express as for the Betrothing this Jesuit would abolish the one and the other which are as it were the Preparatives unto lawful Marriage and the Precautions against the clandestine that he might better favour and authorize them against the prohibition of the Council which condemns them In which he doth like them who seize on the Suburbs and Avenues of a City which they would carry by force For after what he lately spoke thus for abolishing the Bains and authorizing clandestine Contracts of Marriage he maintains 4 Addendum verum esse valide etsi matrimonium ab incolis loci in quo Tridentinum viger in loco in quo non viget etiamsi eo transierit eum ob finem clandestine contrahendi non solum valide sed licite posse fieri servando in aliis jus antiquum quamvis eum ob finem transierit ut non obligaretur Tridentini decreto quo obligabatur in proprio loco cujus erat incols Ibid. dub 6. num 42. That not only clandestine Marriage is valid even amongst the Inhabitants of a Country where the Council of Trent is received when they go into another Country where it is not observed that they may marry in secret but that this Marriage is lawful provided that in other things they observe the ancient Laws though they have purposely changed place that they might be discharged from the Law of the Council of Trent by which they were obliged in their own Country We must say then according to this Casuist that it is lawful to make Marriages which the Church doth nullifie and which it never approved in those very times in which it suffered them For these sorts of Marriages have been heretofore indeed valid but they were never lawful on the contrary they have been always censured in the Church But if the Jesuits make Marriages good which are null on the contrary they make those null which are good 1 Dico effe probabile matrimonium metu levi injuste ad hoc incusso celebratum nullum esse in foro conscientiae Tamb. lib. 1. decal cap. 2. sect 6. n. 12. Ex metu quoque justè incusso hujusmodi matrimonium nullum esse non puto improbabile sect 7. n. 3. I say saith Tambourin that it is probable that a Marriage contracted by some slight fear unjustly induced is null in conscience and even some fear justly raised probably may nullifie the Marriage It must then be affirmed that Marriages to which persons are condemned by the Judges which Fathers cause their Children to make which Masters make of their Servants and Princes of their Subjects are null because commonly these Marriages are made with some sort of fear And the same thing must be said of the Professions made by Monks and Nuns and consequently of all sorts of Engagements and Contracts Nevertheless it is apparent that the Jesuits make use of fear as well as hope sometimes for a motive to engage young persons in their Society and they would not refuse a donation or foundation which should be made to them with some fear without doubting whether it might be null For what concerns the use of Marriage albeit the bodies of married persons are not in their own power according to the words of Scripture 2 Non solum publica mere rix sed etiam occulta matitata potest retinere pretium sornicationis adultâ—…ii Dicastill lib. 2. tr 〈◊〉 disp 6. dub 1. 〈◊〉 â—8 Dicastillus forbears not to permit a married woman to retain to her self the price of her Adultery The reason Tambourin brings for it is considerable 3 Ratiomihi viâ—… esse quia vir nonâ—…st ita dominus corporiâ— uxoris ut in illud perfectissimum dominium habeat sed solum ita ut illo uti queat in debito conjugali omnibus aliis exclusis quod certè non tollit uxori facultatem acquirendi licet cum peccato ex turpi sui corporis concessione Tambur lib 7. decal cap. 3. sect 3. num 〈◊〉 The Husband saith he is not so master of the body of his Wife that he hath a perfect dominion over it but he hath only the power to use it according to the Law of Marriage with exclusion of all others which certainly takes not from the woman power to gain something though not without sin by prostituting her body This reason is worthy the Proposition which it is brought to prove For it is a manifest contradiction to say that a husband hath a right to use the body of his wife with exclusion of every other and that nevertheless the woman may sell the use of the same body unto another if in selling this use she sell not that which belongs unto her husband she doth no injustice and she doth not properly commit adultery and her sin will not be more than a simple fornication This Author makes no difficulty to say 4 Expresse excludere finem multiplicandae prolis imo etiam cupere filios non procreare veniale est Tambur lib. 7. cap. 3. sect 5. num 7. That it is no more than a venial sin expresly to exclude from the use of Marriage the end of having children to desire even to have none at all without considering that the begetting of children being the end of Marriage to use it without this end and even against this end excluding it positively by a contrary desire is to abuse Marriage voluntarily is to profane a Sacrament is to reject and contemn the blessing which is especially given to obtain children it is finally to live with a woman in Marriage as out of Marriage abusing her to satisfie a brutal passion and for sensual pleasure alone as debauched persons abuse women single or married who abandon themselves unto them and yet all these excesses are but a Peccadillo according to this Jesuit When we doubt of the validity of a Marriage and have cause to apprehend that it is null Dicastillus gives an invention unto persons whom the fear of God
contradict and clude this last and dreadful sentence than by correcting his errour to submit himself thereunto for he is not ashamed to say that the reason which Jesus Christ alledges and whereupon he grounds his judgment is not true and takes not place in the matter wherein he alledges it that is to say in the last Judgment It is not to purpose 1 Nec refert quod Dominus Matth. 25. formam judicii describens meminerit potius operum misericordiae quam aliorum Id enim fecit ut homines praesertim plebeios qui ad majora spiritualia parum sunt comparati in hec vita ad ea excitaret haec autem ratio cessat in extremo judicio quia tunc homines non erunt amplius ad optra misericordiae exciâ—tandi Lessim de perfect divin lib. 13. tract 22. pag. 142. saith he to alledge that our Lord in the 25. of S. Matthew representing unto us the form of the last Judgment speaks of the works of mercy rather than others For he doth it only to stir up men and especially the common people who are not capable of comprehending spiritual things to exercise these works in this life Now this reason cannot take place at the last Judgment because then there will be no need to excite men unto works of mercy I will not stay here to examine this excess which will appear strange enough of it self to them who are not void of the common resentments of Christianity because it will be more proper to do it elsewhere We will only observe in this place that one Jesuit hath undertaken to fight and destroy Gods first Commandment and another his last Judgment They who can have the patience to behold a multitude of Expositions of Scripture Councils and Holy Fathers false extravagant unheard of and many times impious need only read Poza's Book which he entituled Elucidarium Deiparae A Volume as big as his would be needful to represent all his excesses I have related some of them in the Chapter of Novelty and elsewhere which I repeat not here to avoid tediousness Father Adam hath surpassed all his Brethren in the same excess For he destroys not only the letter and the sense of Scripture he fights with the Authors themselves whom God hath made use of to impart them to us He decrys them and deprives them of all that authority and credit which is due unto sacred Writers and who were no other than the hand and tongue of the Holy Ghost by attributing unto them weaknesses and extravagancies and affirming by an horrible impiety that following their own imaginations and passions they are sometimes transported beyond truth and have written things otherwise than they were and that they did neither conceive nor believe them themselves in their consciences It will not easily be imagined that this conceit could ever come into the mind of a Monk I will not say but of a Christian who had not entirely renounced the Faith and Church if this Father had not written it in manifest terms and more forcibly than I can represent it in a Book whereto he gives this Title Calvin defeated by himself In the third Part of this Book Chap. 7. he saith That it is not only in criminal matters that zeal and hate inflame a Soul and transport it unto excest and violence but that the Saints themselves acknowledge that they are not exempt from this infirmity And flagrant passions sometimes push them on to actions so strange and ways of expressing themselves so far removed from truth that those who have written their lives have called them holy extravagancies innocent errours and Hyperboles more elevated than their apprehensions and which expressed more than they intended to say He adds also in the same Chapter and in the progress of the same discourse That this infirmity is not so criminal but that God did tolerate it in the person of those Authors whom he inspired and whom we call Canonical whom he left to the sway of their own judgments and the temper of their own spirits He compares the Saints and Fathers of the Church to persons full of passions and violence he excepts not the Canonical Authors themselves and he makes them all subject to the same infirmities and the Canonical Authors also to the greater and more inexcusable For if they be vicious in others they are yet more in these in whom the least faults and the least removes from the truth which in ordinary persons were but marks of infirmity would be as notorious and criminal as the greatest because they would be imputed unto God whose words the Canonical Authors have only rehearsed and it is as unworthy of God contrary to his nature and power to depart a little as much from the truth It is therefore manifest that what this Jesuit saith tends directly to destroy all Holy Scripture Faith and Religion For if the Canonical Writers could exceed and depart a little from the truth in one single point they were subject to do it in all the rest So their discourse is not of divine Authority neither are their Books the Books or Word of God because God is always equally infallible and can never go beyond or depart from the truth in the least whether he speaks himself or by the mouth of his Prophets CHAPTER II. Of the Commandments of God ARTICLE I. Of the first Commandment which is that of Love and Charity THis first Commandment of Love contains in it and requires of us three things to wit that we love God above all Creatures our selves for God and our neighbour as our selves These three coming from one and the same trunk and root shall make three Articles of this Chapter and I will handle all three severally that I may more distinctly represent the Jesuits opinions upon every obligation of the first Commandment and to make it evidently appear that they destroy it in every part I. POINT Of the Command to love God I will relate nothing here save only from Father Anthony Sirmond because he seems particularly to have undertaken to destroy this Precept and because he hath said upon this Subject alone all that may be found in the worst Books of his Fraternity 1. That he abolishes the Command of loving God and reduces it to a simple counsel 2. That according to him the Scripture hardly speaks at all of divine Love and Charity and that our Lord hath very little recommended it 3. That he declares that the love of God may very well consist and agree with the love of our selves 4. And that it is nothing else but self-love SECTION I. That there is no Command to love God according to the Maxims of the Jesuits Divinity OUr Lord speaking of the double Commandment of Love saith That all the Law and the Prophets do depend thereon In his duobus mandatis universa lex pendet Prophetae Matth. 22. He saith not that the command to love God doth depend on and is
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 herein making himself guilty of any fault He saith also the same thing of them who make profession of living well and of all those who of deliberate purpose reject the inspirations and graces by which God inclines them to do any good work though both the one and the other knew that their Salvation would depend upon these inspirations and that through neglect of receiving them and complying with them they might be lost eternally 1 Fateor certe in hujus acceptatione usuque consilii salutis cardinem non raro versari Quo tempore dicss oportet gravissimo se obstringere peccato qui omittar Ego nullum praecise agnosco Celot lib. 9. cap. sect 7. pag. 816. I acknowledge saith he that Salvation depends many times of this counsel and the use that is made of it you must say he speaks to his Adversary that in this case he that will not follow it commits a great sin But as for me I hold that he commits none at all A man that suffers himself to dye of hunger without being willing to take bread or any other nourishment that is presented unto him when he might easily do it would pass in the judgment of all the world for a self-murderer and he that suffers his Soul to dye or rather who kills it by refusing knowingly and even resolvedly the graces and inspirations sent him by God on which he knows that his eternal life and Salvation depend shall be innocent in the judgment of these Jesuits Quo tempore dicas oportet gravissimo se obstringere peccato ego nullum praecise agnosco THE SUM Of the Doctrine of the Jesuits concerning the Love of Charity which a man owes unto God and to himself THey say that when God commands us to love him he intends only that wâ— should serve him though it be without love that he desires no other thing but that we obey him by doing outwardly that which he injoyns us that he would have us also to keep the other Commandments though in keeping them we love him not that it is sufficient not to hate him to fulfil the Commandment of loving him and by consequence to be saved God hath commanded us to love him with all our heart and all our might that is to say so much as we can The Jesuits say on the contrary that it is lawful to love him as little as we will and much less than we might if we would and that this suffices because according to them the least degree of love may satisfie this Commandment As God loves us always and doth us good without intermission so he would also that our love and acknowledgments should be continual and without bounds But the Jesuits maintain that we may pass over whole years without loving him and that by bethinking our selves thereof once in five or seven years we are quit yea that though we have never actually loved him at all through our whole life it suffices to discharge us from this obligation we have to love him to think thereof at the point of death nay there be some who do hardly acknowledge even this obligation God is not content to be loved in a slight way he will be loved as God and as he deserves above all things The Jesuits say on the contrary that we may love all things more than God because according to their Divinity the least degree of love suffices to acquit us of what we owe him And when God saith that he will be loved above all things they hold that he would say only above all things that are evil and contrary to his friendship that is to say above all sorts of mortal sins which only can overturn and destroy the friendship which men have with God As man cannot find his bliss but in God so he loves not himself truly but so far as he loves God seeks adheres and is united to him by love but the Jesuits dispense with him for this genuine love which he owes himself by discharging him of that which he is obliged to bear towards God They say moreover that being departed from God he may continue in that estate without troubling himself about returning to God and himself and that when God seeks him first by his inspirations he may refuse and reject them and abide in this estate of enmity and voluntary aversion from God until the point of death and so expose himself to the danger of perishing eternally without making himself by this guilty of any fault and without being deficient in the love he owes himself any more than in that he owes God III. POINT Of the Command to love our Neighbour that the Jesuits utterly destroy it FAther Bauny in his Sum Chap. 7. pag. 81. expounds the Command to love our Neighbour in these terms By Charity we are obliged to testifie unto him who may have offended us that we retain no animosity against him and according to the convenience of times and persons give him proofs of the love we bear him He quotes some Divines from whom he hath taken what he saith and he adds reason grounded on the Example and Authority of the holy Fathers For love saith he which we bear towards our brethren ought to resemble that which the members have one towards another as writes S. Austin in the 15. of his 50 Homilies Si enim sic nos amare voluerimus quomodo se invicem amant membr nostri corporis perfecta in nobis charitas potest oustodiri And making application of this Example taken out of S. Austin and which S. Austin took out of S. Paul Let us see then saith he what it is the members of the body do naturally one for another They love and agree mutually and sympathize with one another in misery Quando sanum est caput congaudent omnia membra placent sibi de singulis caetera membra c. See here the duties of Charity towards our Neighbour which he acknowledgeth with the Divines and holy Fathers and then he establisheth the command and obligation It is even hereunto that God and Nature obligeth us saith S. Ambrose in the first Book of his Offices Chap. 28. And therefore Secundum Dei voluntatem naturae copulam invicem nobis auxilio esseâ—debemus certare officiis velut in medio omnes utilitates ponere adjumentum ferre alter alteri vel studio vel officio vel pecunia vel alio quolibet modo ut inter nos societatis augeatur gratia Perhaps it will be wondred at at first that I having undertaken to represent only the Errours of the Jesuits have rehearsed these places of Father Bauny as if I had something to reply against them But I do not pretend to reprove him for producing the opinion of the holy Fathers with those of the School-Divines that he might establish one of the principal points of Christian Morality I have no other design than to make him see clearly the excess wherewith he is
also upon some bad occasion as to affirm by oath that one hath committed murder or adultery is but a venial sin 1 Qula licet juramentum hoc adjungatur narrationi peccati mortalis ut juro me commisisse tale homicidium vel fornicationem tamen non fit cum complacentia in illo ex necessitate sed tantum fic sine causa leviter quare non excedet culpam venialem Ibid. n. 336. pag. 205. For though we make use of this oath in the relation we make of a mortal sin as when we say I swear that I have committed this murder or this fornication yet this may be done without any complacency in this crime and only out of levity and without cause Wherefore it is but a venial sin He adds that though a man who swears thus should take pleasure in the crime he relates and should scandalize and defame another person in his relation this oath according to Suarez would not be mortal which he also believes as probable with him For after he hath said that the more rational Casuists hold that 2 Si quis narret peccatum mortale infamando proximum ut adulterium cum muliere honesta vel complacendo in illo tunc juramentum additum videtur mortale Ibid. num 337. if any one reporting a mortal sin wrong the honour and reputation of his neighbour as by saying that he hath committed adultery with an honest woman or if he take pleasure therein if he swear to affirm that which he saith it is a mortal sin he opposeth unto theirs the opinion of Suarez as probable 3 Attamen Suarez loco citato n. 8. defendit à mortali si tantum habeatur ratio juramenti quia non cadit supra illam materiam quatenus mala sed tantum quatenus vera Quare nec erit peccatum saltem mortale quod est satis probabile Ibid. For all that Suarez saith he in the place now quoted n. 8. maintains that it is no mortal sin if it be considered only as an oath because this oath regards not the matter of this discourse as bad but only as true And by consequence there is none at the least no mortal sin therein which is probable enough And because this reason of Suarez is metaphysical enough Filliutius relates another or rather expounds the same in another manner and makes it more intelligible 4 Quia ejusmodi defectus nec est contra finem juramenti Potest enim confirmari per illud veritas nec facit Deum testem mendacii sed ad summum rei malae indecentis ut diximus At id per se non est injuria gravis Ibid. num 336. Because this defect saith he speaking of the injury done unto God by the man who takes him for a witness of the adultery he hath committed is not contrary to the end of an oath For it may serve to confirm the truth and he takes not God for a witness of a false but at the most of a wicked and dishonest thing as we have said and this in it self is no great injury against God By this reckoning we may say that a child should do his father no great wrong nor a servant his Master nor wife her husband to produce and take him for witness of her debauches provided they were true unless we will say that the honour of God is less considerable than that of men or that God ought to be insensible of all injuries and indignities committed against him Sanchez discharges of sin at least mortal all those who swear of custom 5 Qualiscunque illa fit nondum sit reâ—ractata Atque ita ut sint peccata lethalia requirit talem advertentiam qualis est necessaria in homine non sic ad jurandum assueto Sanch. op moral lib. 3. cap. 5. num 28. pag. 21. of what sort soever it be saith he though they have not yet recanted it If they in swearing have not so much presence of mind as to perceive what they say and do and what evil they cause as the most prudent have who have not this evil habit so their vice and wicked custom of swearing shall not hurt them but on the contrary upon this occasion it shall be favourable unto them For if they had it not they would perceive what they did in swearing and would make themselves Criminals But because the evil custom of swearing which they have contracted and wherein they persist still voluntarily blinds and hinders them from perceiving the crime they commit it secures them from it according to this Doctor By this reason if a man being in a dangerous way should pull out his own eyes and then fall into a precipice he might be excused by this that he could not see when he fell By all this which hath been said unto this present it is clear that the Jesuits excuse them who swear and forswear through an evil habit who swear rashly and without reason vainly and without necessity in wicked and scandalous matters which tend to the dishonour of our neighbour by defaming him and of God by taking him for witness of crimes and debauches of which in swearing they boast themselves So that there remains nothing in this matter but swearing and forswearing with full knowledge and black malice to be a crime and which properly retains the name of an oath and perjury in the Schools of these Fathers Escabar puts this Question 1 Lictuâ—e inducere aliquem ad jurandum falsum quod tamen ipse juraturus ex ignorantia verum putat Escobar tr 1. exam 3. cap. 7. num 31. p. 74. Is it lawful to suborn any person to swear a false thing which he notwithstanding ignorantly believes to be true And after he had said that Azor is not of this opinion because it is not lawful to cause that evil to be done by another which we cannot do our selves he adds 2 Affiâ—n ac autem Petrus Hartado But this is the opinion of P. Hurtado He might also have joyned Sanchez to him who holds the same opinion 3 Si absque inductione aliqua mea ille se effâ—…at ad jurandum quod bona fide putat esse verum etian si ego falsum norim conducat ad probandum quod scio verum esse ne jure meo defrauder licebit utique acceptare Sanch. op moral lib. 3. cap. 8. num 10. pag 35. If some one present himself to me saith he without my sollicitation to swear that which he in simplicity believes to be true though I know well that it is false if notwithstanding it serve to prove some other thing which I know to be true and conduces to hinder that I be not deprived of my right it is lawful for me to take his offer The reason of Escobar is 4 Quia proximus tunc non inducitus ad effâ—ctum formaliter malum cum jurando non delinquat Ibid. Escobar Because in
this case we engage not our neighbour in a thing which is formally evil since he sins not in swearing We may say by the same reason that it is lawful to cause a Fool to kill another man because he sins not in killing him He demands also 5 Licetne petere juramentum 〈◊〉 co quem timto la sum juraturum Licet dummodo â—on petatur ut 〈◊〉 sulsum Ibid. num 33. Whether it be lawful to cause him to swear whom we fear will swear false In the disposition wherein this man is supposed to be it is one and the same thing to require him to swear and forswear since we know that the one is inseparable from the other and because we dare not require both together we need only according to these Doctors make an abstraction in our minds and separate the one from the other in our thoughts and only require him to swear without considering the perjury he is about to commit Filliutius hath put the same Question and answered it in the same manner 6 Dico 4. posse quemcunque intercedente legitima cause petere juramentum ab co quem probabiliter timet esse pejuraturum Filliutiâ— com 2. moral qq tract 21. cap. 11. num 447. pag. 206. I hold saith he that any one may upon a lawful cause request a man to swear though he probably fear that he will be forsworn And this answer is but a conclusion drawn from a Principle he had minted before saying 7 Non esse intrinsece malum petere juramentum ab â—o quem scimus pejuraturum dummodo serventur aliquae conditiones Ibid. num 346. That this thing is not evil in it self to require an oath of a person whom we know will forswear himself so that some conditions be observed Amongst these conditions one of the principal is 8 Ut sit alique justs causa id petendi necessitas videlicet vel utilitas alioqui esset contra charitatem proximum constituere in tali occasione That somewhat of value be in question and that there be some just cause to require this oath as the necessity of our affairs or benefit we hope therefrom otherwise it would be against Charity to expose and engage our neighbour in such an occasion He believes not that it would be against the Charity we owe our Neighbour to cause him to kill his own Soul by perjury when we pretend some temporal interest in it but then only when we pretend nothing nor receive any profit from it Filliutius saw this difficulty very well but he forbears not for all that to persist in the maintenance of his opinion saying 9 Ne propterea est contra charitatem quia haec non obligat ad vitandum peccatum alterius cum proprio damno That yet this is not against Charity because it obliges us not to avoid the sin of another man by our own loss This Maxime agrees well with the Word of Jesus Christ who saith that it were better to be cast head-long into the bottom of the Sea with a Mill-stone about our neck than to offend our neighbour and to induce him to sin They consider neither truth which is prejudiced nor God who is offended by perjury nor the Soul of our neighbour who kills himself by his perjury but only the private interest of him who causes him to swear which they are not ashamed to prefer before all these things Who dares excuse him who should induce his brother to do an action which he knew was capable to procure his fathers death and his also because he might from thence draw to himself some profit or advantage thereby Nevertheless the Jesuits allow this to all sorts of persons in reference to God and their Neighbour that is to say in reference to their brother and father saying 1 Non est intrinsecè malum petere juramentum ab eo quem scimus pejeraturum That it is not a thing evil in it self to intreat a person to swear who we know very well will forswear himself This opinion is Sanchez's also who after he had said that there are some who hold 2 Ut non liceat juramentum à pejeraturo petere quamvis ille ad pejerandum paratus sit seque sponte offerat That it is not lawful to induce him to swear who will forswear himself though he be very forward and offer himself voluntarily thereto he adds speaking after his own opinion and correcting that of those Divines 3 At concurtenti justa causa nulla est culpa Sanch. op moral lib. 3. cap. 8. num 6. pag. 34. That when some just occasion to do it occurs it is no sin And a little after to clear up this Question he adds 4 Sed major est difficultas quando ille pejeraturus non erat actu paratus at necessitas est in petente Ibid. num 7. But the difficulty is greater when he who is to forswear himself is not disposed thereunto and he who intreats it of him hath some necessity obliging him thereto He acknowledges that according to the Principles of S. Austin S. Thomas and other Divines whom he had quoted before this is not lawful but he forbears not to maintain on the contrary 5 Dicendum est licere concurrenti justa causa necessitatis ejus juramenti quamvis alter sit pejeraturus nec esset paratus ad pejerandum Ibid. That it is lawful when any just occasion happens which renders this oath needful though he who takes it must forswear himself and was not disposed to forswear himself if he had not been intreated His grounds are the same with those of Filliutius 6 Ratio est quia non petitur ab eo perjurium sed juramentum Nec lex charitatis obligat cum proprio notabili detrimento ad vitandum id proximi peccatum Ibid. The reason is saith he because he is notrequired to forswear himself but to swear and the Law of Charity obliges not to eschew this sin of our Neighbour with notable damage to our selves thereby to be incurred And being desirous to make us see what necessity and moâ—ive might suffice to make a person swear who we are assured will forswear himself and offers himself to that purpose he brings two Examples The first Example is 7 Quia potest quisplam causam alterius agere ratio administnedonis petit exigi id juramentum nisi petatur arguetur praevaricationis existimatae aut negligentis administrationis Ibid. That it may happen that a man hath taken on him the care of another mans affairs and that to acquit himself well therein he shall be obliged to exact this oath so that if he fail therein he will give occasion of suspecting his fidelity or his affection and vigilance So you have the first Example which is of a man who being charged with some affairs knows not well how to perform or dispatch them so readily as he desires
gaudio delectatione non quidem habitâ— de morte ipsa secundum se quatenus est malum patris immo ad finem haereditatis obtinendae aut similem optare ut licita via scilicet à Deo non quatenus malum patris est sed quatenus inde filio bonum provenit non putarem esse mortale Dicastill lib. 2. tom 2. disp 12. a. 1. dub 6. num 546. That it is not altogether certain that a child can lawfully desire the death of his father or rejoyce in it because of inheritance which might come to him thereby but he believes that he sins not mortally in rejoycing not in his death considered as an evil unto his father but as a lawful means appointed of God for him to obtain the succession not because some evil befel the father but some good the son See here a man exceedingly confounded He would gladly justifie a child who desires the death of his father that he may enjoy his estate but he dares not do it absolutely because this appears not to him to be altogether certain He contents himself to exempt him from mortal sin by the rule of directing the intention which teaches him to look on his fathers death not as ill to his father but as good for himself because of the inheritance that comes to him thereby 1 An possit filius mortem patris optare vel de illa gaudere non ut est malum patris hoc enim esset odium execrandum sed ur ipse filius patris haereditate fruatur facilis est responsio Licite enim haec optas vel amplecteris quia non gaudes de alterius malo sed de proprio bono Tambur lib. 5. decal cap. 1. sect 3. num 29. Tambourin who wrote since Dicastillus is more hardy he makes no difficulty of exempting this desire from sin on condition the intention be directed according as Dicastillus discourseth And that he might render this more probable and more intelligible he distinguisheth of two sorts of desires whereof the one is absolute and the other conditional 2 Si desideres sub conditione facilis item responsio licite posse Si quis enim hunc actum eliciat Si meus pater moreretur ego haereditate potirer gâ—uderet tunc ille non de patris morte sed de haereditate n. 30. If you desire the death of your father upon some condition saith he the answer is easie that you may lawfully For if one say in himself if my father should dye I should enjoy his estate in this case he should not rejoyce in his fathers death but in his inheritance Behold the Example of a conditional desire in which he finds no difficulty He proposes and expounds the other desire which he calls absolute in these terms 3 Cupio mortem patris non ut malum patrâ—s est sed ut bonum meum seu ut causa mei boni nimitum quia ex il ius morte ego ejus haereditatem adibo Si inquam sic defideras major est difficultas resolvendi c. Nihilom inus Castropalaus ...... ex quibus vides opinionem Castropalai esse satis probabilem num 31 32 33. I desire the death of my father not because it is an evil to him but because it is good for me or because it is the cause of good unto me and because by this his death I enter into the possession of my paternal inheritance This is the same thing that he had already said in the former passage and this repetition makes us see more clearly the perplexity he is in through the desire he hath to justifie this unnatural child in his desire of his fathers death that he may enjoy his estate He finds therein some difficulty but after he had reported the opinion of Castropalao who approves this sort of desires he concludes that this opinion is probable enough that is to say that a child may lawfully and without sin love his fathers inheritance better than his father himself For if he loved his father better than the inheritance that he hopes from him he could not rejoyce in the death of his father as in some good thing since it would procure him more hurt than good by taking from him his father whom he loves more than all the estate he should receive thereby I know not how without horrour any can I will not say approve but produce and publish such thoughts and desires so opposite to the most common notions of reason and of Christian and natural piety to exempt that from sin in children which were horrible and criminal in the remotest kindred friends or domesticks and finally to pretend to prove this overthrow of Nature and Reason by the most brutish and inhumane Principle that can be imagined saying that a man may desire evil to any person whomsoever and even death it self unto his own father provided he consider this evil as his own proper good and not barely as an evil unto him to whom he wisheth it It is thus that Lyons Bears and Tygers devour men not simply to kill them and to do them hurt but for their own proper good that they may feed themselves with their flesh yet they spare beasts of their own kind and in this they are less cruel and inhumane than men who are so blind and unnatural as to believe and follow a Doctrine so pernicious and which teaches men to kill eat and devour one another through a desire of any the least temporal interest If this were lawful as the Jesuits pretend there would be no more any true Christian or humane Society It would be lawful for every private man to desire publick Calamities not considering them as the destruction of Families Towns and the Common-wealth but as his particular benefit There should be no more Charity nor Religion since we might without sin according to this Divinity not only wish all sorts of mischief to our Neighbour but desire also the profanation of the most Holy things and the out-throw of the Laws of God and the Church provided only we say that it is not any hurt or offence to God or our Neighbour that we desire but only the good and profit that thereby we pretend unto Now Tambourin as he speaks more absolutely and boldly than Dicastillus because he wrote after him so he adds also the resolution of many like questions 1 An possiâ— subditus mottem cupere sui Praelati ut Praelaturae ipse succedaâ— vel ut ab eo Praelato sibi infenso liberetur Si solum desideres vel cum gaudio exciplas ejusmodi effectus haereditaâ—em molestiae carentiam pâ—aelaturam facilis est responsio Lici è enim haec optas vel amplecteris quia non gaudes de alterius malo sed'de proprio bâ—no May an inferior desire the death of his superior in the Church or Common-wealth that he may succeed in his Office or that he may be delivered from him
Jesuit approves and authorizes But if the Errour and Crime were not so evident as it is in this opinion its novelty alone of which this Casuist would make use to exempt it from the censure of the Church suffices to make us see that it is condemned by the Church it self For there is no Divine who knows not that Novelty and particularly in matters of Doctrine hath been always suspected and odious in the Church and that it hath always rejected and condemned it by the Laws and Mouths of all the Saints which governed it And by consequent this opinion of Amicus being novel by his own confession it hath been condemned by the Church before it proceeded from his imagination After Amicus had expounded this pernicious Doctrine so largely built it up with so great care and supported it with all the reasons he could he thinks to put himself under shelter by saying 3 Verum quoniam haec apud alios scriptanon legimus nolumus à nobis ita sint dictâ— ut communi sententiae adversentur sed solum disputandi gratia proposita maturo judicio relicto penes prudentem lectorem Amicuâ— supra â—om 5. disp 36. sect 7. num 118. pag. 544. That since he had not read these things in the Writings of any Author his design was not to oppose himself to the common opinion but only to propose it by way of dispute leaving it to him who should read these things to judge thereof according to his prudence But seeking to hide he discovers himself the more and his words render him more guilty since he acknowledges this Doctrine is novel and that he hath not found it in any Author He therefore by this makes known and declares openly that it is he who invented so abominable an opinion And therefore we may say with all truth that it had its birth in the School of the Jesuits that they are the Authors of it and that it is properly and particularly their Doctrine And it is to no purpose for Amicus to say that he doth not set on foot these Maxims so contrary to Justice Nature and humane Society but only by way of disputation and that he submits his unto others Judgment For this discourse makes not an opinion good which is bad of it self and this excuse and submission hinders him not from being blamable for publishing of it but it only testifies that he did this with fear and that he meant hereby to sound as it were the minds of men to see how this his first Proposal of it would be received in the world that he might afterwards declare himself more openly and maintain it with an absolute confidence if this first draught of his Essay should prosper with him and an opinion so strange and odious should only be tolerated But besides this it is an enterprise unsufferable and pernicious to the Church and Common-wealth to propose so horrible Errours and Maxims which carry on unto vice revenge and murder under a pretence that it is done only for disputation sake and for an exercise of wit without determining any thing at all absolutely There is no more certain way to teach men all sorts of villanies and to imprint in their minds all sorts of the most brutish and abominable imaginations III. POINT The Opinions of other Jesuits concerning Murder THis matter is too important to relye on the Judgment of Lessius and Amicus alone We must joyn thereto that of some others of their Fraternity the better to verifie what we have reported of their Writings Now if it fall out that they say in a manner all the same thing it will prove the truth of what I say that this Doctrine of Murder is not the opinion of one or two private persons only but of the principal Jesuits and of the Spirit of the Society 1. Dicastillus as well as Amicus whom we have already quoted with others also gives licence to any one whomsoever to kill all sorts of persons indifferently Father Mother Priest Monk all Superiors generally without excepting Princes and Kings no more than Bishops or Popes when they are perswaded that they assault them unjustly 1 Licitum est filiis contra parentes servis contra Dominos vassallis contra Principes vim vi repellere quando actu invaduntur injuste Idemque de Monachis aut subditis contrs Abbates Superiores est communis sententiâ— Dicast l. 2. tr 1. disp 10. dub 3. num 30. It is lawful saith he for Children to rise against their Parents Servants against their Masters Vassals against their Princes and to repel force with force when they are actually and unjustly assailed And the same is lawful for Monks against their Abbots and Inferiors against their Superiors So that if we should see a Son smite his Father we ought not lightly to condemn him for it may be this Father would have beaten him unjustly Molina speaking of an Adulterer doth not only not call it in question whether it be lawful for him to kill the Husband of the Woman with whom he hath sinned when he takes him in the fact but he takes it for granted as a certain thing that he may do it for the defence of his honour and life 2 Adulter aggressus à mâ—rito adulterae in facto deprehensus licite illum interficere potest Molina de just jur tom 4. tr 3. disp 14. pag. 1765. An Adulterer saith he may lawfully kill the Husband of a Woman with whom he hath committed Adultery if her Husband having surprised him in the fact do assault him Tambourin is also of the same opinion 3 Adulter in adulterio deprehensus pâ—test se defendere occidendo eos qui ipsum occidere aggrediuntur quia in foro conscientiae non juste invaditur merito Tambur lib. 16. decal cap. 1. sect 1. num 7. An Adulterer saith he taken in the fact may he defend himself and kill those that would kill him I answer he may Because according to the Laws of Conscience the Husband hath not right to assault him If then in Conscience and before God this Husband assaults him not according to Justice He kills him then unjustly And notwithstanding Tambourin forbears not to give him a dispensation also saying in the following Section 4 Potest maritus occidere juvenem vim infarentem uxori quomodocun que consentienti quando illum aliter avertere non potest sect 2. num 8. That a Husband may kill a young man that forces his Wife though she consent to it in any sort whatsoever This advice doubtless is very religious to permit a dishonoured Husband to revenge himself of treachery by injustice and it is also an excellent manner for an Adulterer to repair his fault and expiate his crime of prophanation of Marriage by taking away the Husbands life after he hath taken away the Wifes honour according as these Jesuits allow him Molina in the process of his discourse saith the same
seeing a Thief flye away on horse-back or otherwise it is lawful to kill him before he hides what he hath stoln Lessius as we have seen already propounds the same case and resolves it in the same manner He speaks as Vasquez of a person that hath taken away something of no value as an Apple and will not restore it He avows that he deserves not to be killed for that but he adds 7 Si tamen tibi verteretur probro nisi tem furi extorqueas pesses conati si opus esset etiam occidere Lessius de just jur lib. 2. c. 4. c. 9. d. 114 num 68. p. 88. That if it would be a shame to you not to take it out of the Thiefs hands you may endeavour to take it from him and even kill him if it be necessary The Stoicks taught indeed that it was lawful to kill ones self rather than lose his honour and there are many Examples found in the Histories and Books of the Pagans of persons commended for having practised this wicked Maxime But I find no moral Rule nor civil Law in all Heathen Antiquity which ever tolerated what the Jesuits allow to kill a man for a thing of so small importance as an Apple so often as it falls out that the loss thereof brings upon us some abatement of worldly honour I have not found I say in all Heathen Antiquity any Philosophy which hath taught no Law which hath tolerated this no more than any Example of any person that ever did it with the approbation of any sage persons For this cause the Jesuits may boast truly that they have passed the bounds not only of the Fathers of the Church as they brag openly but even of all the Heathen Philosophers and to have discovered Principles and invented Rules of Morality which the Pagans destitute of faith by the light of reason only would have abhorred and rejected as errours and extravagances Nevertheless Vasquez believes that he is obliged to extend this same power of killing in defence of what belongs to them unto the Clergy and Monks It seems to me saith he that this is lawful for them as well as the Laity and that herein there is nothing contrary to their Profession The Jesuits content not themselves to allow killing as we have now seen they teach also and note out in particular the ways to do it Lessius and Molina as we have already seen give herein an entire liberty to do whatsoever we please and to take all ways which seem necessary and which may be most commodious and easie Sanchez descending farther unto particulars saith it is lawful to take the way of a Duel if we be expert therein and think to have advantage thereby 1 Quia hoc duellum rationem defensionis cum moderamine inculpatae tutelas induit Ea defensio contra invasorem est licits pro vita pro honore pro rebus etiam tuendis Sanch. opusc moral lib. 2. cap. 29. num 7. p. 295. Because saith he this duelling is accounted a just defence moderate also and without excess and this sort of defence is lawful for the preservation of life honour and goods There are Casuists who on these occasions would at least that the Princes licence be had but Sanchez saith that this is not necessary 2 Nâ—m defensio jure natutali absque alicujus licentia conceditur Ibid. Because Nature gives a right of self-defence without need of demanding any toleration And this natural right gives leave to send as well as receive a Challenge according to this same Jesuit who attributes not without commendations this opinion to Bannes saying 3 Atque optimâ— Bannes ait licere innocenti in his casibus acceptare offerre duellum ob rationem traditam Ibid. Imo non provocando ad duellum interficere occulte actorem illum caiumaiosum Ibid. That he hath very well observed that in these occurrents the innocent party may accept or offer combat if he had not rather deal more securely for himself by killing him secretly instead of fighting him For he pretends that the same reason which gives liberty to kill an enemy in a Duel gives him leave also to kill him secretly 4 Cum haec occisio sit vera defensio Because this slaughter in what manner soever it be done is always a true defence And he declares that this right of killing an enemy in secret rather than by fighting with him is so strong that it sometimes passeth into an obligation Insomuch that he even assures us 5 Imo bene Navarra n. 290. ait teneri innocentem non acceptare duellum nec indicere si potest occulte illum occidendo id vitae honeris fortunarum periculum evadere Ibid. That Navarra saith very well that an innocent person ought neither to offer or accept the combat if he can kill his enemy privily and thereby escape that peril of life honour and goods And he holds that this obligation proceedeth from the Charity which this innocent person who commits this secret murder owes to himself and him whom he kills 6 Quippe qui proprium vitae periculum in duello imminens vitabit peccatum actoris offerentis aut acceptantis duellum Ibid. For as much saith he as by this means he will avoid the imminent danger of his own life whereunto he had exposed it in fighting a duel and he will withhold his Adversary from offending God by giving or accepting the Challenge It must be confessed that this is a strange and unheard of Law of Charity which obliges to kill our Neighbour and Brother to keep him from offending God and to cause him to be slain secretly for fear that if he be openly set upon he should be transported with some excess through a desire to desend himself and commit a crime in fighting a duel and in the mean time to make no difficulty nor scruple of sending him to Hell by killing him in an estate which he believes to be criminal and guilty of injustice which ought surely to be very great and manifest since it is taken for the ground and pretence of killing It is sufficiently manifest that this is not the Charity which Jesus Christ hath taught us by his Words and Example which obligeth us to dye for our brethren and for our enemies themselves and to prefer the good of their Souls and their Salvation above all our interests and all the goods of the world Molina proceeds yet farther than Sanchez or at least he declares himself better upon this Point For Sanchez seems not to oblige us to kill our enemy in our defence no otherwise than by the Charity we owe to our selves and imposes not this obligation on other than the innocent without determining what his sin would be if he failed herein But Molina extends this obligation to every sort of Superiors publick Persons and even to many private Persons pretending that it is a
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
the opinion of some we may without any sin appropriate them unto our selves with the following circumstances The first is that we inform our selves of the neighbourhood or of those who by their condition may best know news thereof if they have no knowledge of the true and lawful possessor The second is that we be in a disposition readily to restore it when the true owner shall make appear it is his Though this opinion be false and very unjust yet he seems to make it less criminal by the qualification he gives it being not willing that he who keeps the things he finds should appropriate them unto himself and permitting him only to become depository and to make use of them so only that he be disposed to restore them to the demandant when he makes appear they are his But he immediately after destroys this condition by establishing three Principles which he holds for certain and whereupon he will have the decision of this difficulty entirely to depend The first is that he who hath these things may appropriate them to himself if he be poor The second that this being once done that is to say the thing found being once thus appropriated it shall so properly belong unto him that though the true owner appear afterwards he shall not be obliged to quit the possession thereof Which doth wholly destroy what he had before established as a necessary condition unto the power of retaining what is found that he should be disposed to restore it to him who should demand it when it appeared that it was his The third Principle That under the name of the poor are comprised the Monasteries Hospitals Churches those that want things necessary for a moderate maintenance as well of their quality as of their life If he be a poor man that hath not all that which is necessary to support himcreditably according to his condition there is scarce any man at this day who may not call himself poor and who by consequence may not appropriate to himself all the lost things he can find or which shall be directed to him without being ever obliged to restore them though they whose they are come to challenge them Layman is of the same opinion For after he had said that in the case of things found the common opinion of the Doctors is that they ought absolutely be restored to them whose they are or at least if he be not found to be distributed to the poor and employed in good works he supports this opinion also on the Authority of S. Austin bringing a passage out of this great Doctor of the Church which he took out of the 9. of his 50 Homilies 1 Si quid invenisti non reddidisti rapuisti 8. August homil 9. inter 50. If you have found any thing and have not restored it you have stoln it And on the other hand he relates also the contrary opinion which holds that we may appropriate and keep things found And afterwards passing sentence upon this difference he concludes in these terms 2 Inter has duas opiniones prior magis pla tutior est attamen posterior quoque prohabilis Lay-man lib. 3. tract 1. cap. 5. num 24. The first of these two opinions is more pious and secure nevertheless the last is probable also And he adds in favour of this last opinion that after we have attended some time if it happen that he whose the thing is which was found cannot be discovered we have liberty to dispose of it absolutely whether he give it or sell it or spend it 3 Quod si vero post alienationem vel consumptionem bona fide factam Daminus compareat â—ihil ipsi restituendum est nisi quatenus inventor locupletior inde factus est Ibid. And if it happen that after he hath alienated or spent it without fraud or unjust contrivance simply and honestly the owner come and present himself he is not obliged to restore any thing unto him but what he hath put out to use and whereby he is become more wealtby Bauny saith also the same thing and seemeth to have taken it out of Layman translating it only out of Latine into French For in Chap. 13. of his Sum pag. 191. he makes this Question Whereunto are we obliged having spent what was anothers in honest simplicity supposing it to be our own and not anothers He answers To restore so much as we have profited thereby and not more And foreseeing himself the objection might be made against him That there was injustice therein and by consequence an obligation to restitution in his action who contrary to justice appropriated unto himself what he neither could nor ought because he took it from another he saith for Answer That in the above alledged acis there is no injustice to be found because they have a specious shew of honest simplicity This good Father speaks better than he intended saying That these actions which he intended to justifie have a colour of sincerity For indeed they have only an appearance of fair dealing and equitable actions and are true Thests as S. Austin above quoted by Layman testifies If you find and restore not you steal Under the same pretence and colour of simplicity he would have usurarious bargains and contracts to pass for good When he saith Bauny in his Sum chap. 11. pag. 156. That they who by traffick merchandize usurarious bargains or contracts believing them to be good have gained great wealth being invincibly ignorant that such manner of dealings were forbidden and unlawful are not obliged to make restitution of those goods so gotten although after they have so gained them they be informed of the injustice of such contracts And a little after pag. 154. after he had said that a person after renunciation might in conscience substract and keep one part of his goods to maintain his family and his port continuing his discourse and enlarging his opinion he adds Which thing I conceive also to take place in like manner when women by the ill government of their husbands and children by that of their parents are constrained to renounce their Estates unto the Creditors who thereof cause an Act of Renunciation to be made by the hands of the Judges And a few lines after he pursues it farther and saith That a wife or children being called unto Judgment to see themselves condemned to confess what they have put aside taken out from or usurped of the Moveables Inheritance or Goods of the Deceased are not in conscience obliged to confess it And because they may be brought upon their Oaths and obliged to swear before a Judge he gives them this expedient Nevertheless that they may not lye and so doing foreswear themselves the prudent Confessor shall teach them that they are to frame a conception in their minds according to which they may form their answer and oath which they may make by the command of the Judge to justifie and make
we promise obedience to the Superiors of the Church in becoming Christians and we promise to render them this obedience as to them who hold the place of God according to the Word of Jesus Christ 1 Qui vos audit me audit Luc. 10. v. 16. He that obeys you obeys me And according to that of S. Paul 2 Pro Christo ergo legatione fungimur tanquam Deo exhortante per nos 2 Cor. 5. v. 20. Gods speaks unto you by us we are but the Ministers and Embassadors of Jesus Christ If then the Superiors of a Religious Order can command the internal actions because the submission rendred unto them depends on the will and promise of their Inferiors which regards God in them it must also be confessed by the same reason that the Ecclesiastick Superiors Prelates have the same power and may as well command the internal actions of them that are subject unto them for their Salvation Also it is incredible and contrary to the most common apprehensions of Christianity that the Superiors of Religious Orders should have more Power and Authority in their Congregations than the Bishops and Pope himself have in the Church and that the Power of the Pope and the Bishops should not be more internal and spiritual than that of Magistrates and Secular Princes unto whom these Jesuits compare them setting them all equally in the same inability to command internal things without acknowledging any difference betwixt them in this point and giving this advantage above them only unto Superiors of Religious Orders when they say 3 Discrimen est inter obligationem regularium ex voto obedientiae obâ—igationem aliorum ex lege civili vel Ecclesiastica That this is the difference which is betwixt the obligation of Regulars who come under a vow of obedience And if the Laws of the Church differ not in this point from the Civil Laws and the Prelates of the Church no more than Civil Magistrates have any power to command internal actions we must say that the Superiors of Religious Orders unto whom they ascribe this power hold it not from the Church and cannot receive from it that power which they say it hath not it self Also they pretend to hold it from the will of those who make vows of Religion since they say 4 Praeceptum Praelati regularis fundatur in voluntate voventis pacto seu promissione ejuâ— c. That the command of a Superior in a Religious Order is founded upon the will of him who makes the vow and on the covenant and promise by which he is obliged to obey him c. They would then that the Superiors of a Religious Order receive not from the Church the Authority and Power which they have to command but from the will of those who become Religious and they are herein soveraign and independent on the Church Which is both against the modesty of Religious persons the Order of the Church truth it self and evident reason the Superiors of the Religious Orders being not capable of so much only as to receive any Religious into their Order but by the power which they have received from the Superiors of the Church who consequently have all the power of the Superiors of the Religious Orders and much more but they have it in a manner more eminent as the Spring and Principle of this Power And if the Inferiors can by their will and by their vows give to the Superiors of Religious Orders Authority and Power to command them even internal things Jesus Christ might with stronger reason give it unto the Prelates of the Church over them and over all other the Faithful since Jesus Christ hath more power over us than we have over our selves and we are without comparison more his than our own So that he might give the Church all power over us which private persons can give over themselves to Superiors of Religious Orders by their vows and much more Which shews that the Ecclesiastick is far different from the Civil Jurisdiction with which the Jesuits nevertheless do confound it and the Ecclesiastick are other than the Civil Laws which they notwithstanding would make equal For the Jurisdiction which Jesus Christ hath given the Church over all Christians is more extended holy and divine than that of Secular Magistrates and it respects Souls more than bodies the inward than the outward since it respects eternal Salvation which depends altogether on the actions of the Soul and not of the body which do nothing without those of the Soul Also Jesus Christ hath not given unto Secular Powers the Holy Ghost to govern their people as he hath given it to his Church He hath not given them the power to open and shut Heaven unto them to cut them off and re-unite them to his body to nourish them with his flesh and blood and to fill them with his Spirit and he hath not said unto them that when they speak it is the Holy Ghost who speaks in them that it is the Holy Ghost who commands what they command that whoso despise and dishonour them despise and dishonour the Holy Ghost For thus the Apostles have spoken in the Scripture since S. Peter saith to Ananias and his Wife that they lyed unto the Holy Ghost because they had lyed unto one of the Ministers of the Church And this is the reason that the Councils and the Fathers so often call the Laws of the Church Sacred and Divine knowing that they proceed from the Holy Ghost who is always in the Church as Jesus Christ was with the Apostles and conducted them till his Passion and death Which is so true that Layman himself could not refrain from acknowledging it more than once in very clear terms 1 Quis enim neget quin lege vel praecepto Ecclesiae utpote animarum salutem sptctante praecipi possit ut ministri Ecclesiae vere non simulatorie orent Sacramenta ministrent Fidelibus omnibus ut Sacramenta vere non per fictionem suscipiant Qui autem sine interna intentione orant sine ullo animi dolore peccata confitentur c. si non vere sed ficte orant non verae sed fictae poenitentiae Sacramentum postulant Ergo non satissaciunt Ecclesiae praecepto Ibid. Who doubts saith he that the Church which in all its conduct regards the Salvation of Souls may command its Ministers to pray and administer the Sacraments with sincerity and not only in appearance and to all the Faithful to receive in like manner the Sacraments with a true internal disposition Now they who pray without inward attention and they who confess without a true sorrow for their sins neither pray nor confess truly but in appearance And by consequence they satisfie not the Commandment of the Church Which may be extended to all the Commandments and all the Laws of the Church since they are all of the same nature and all have reference to
govern their Subjects I know not whether ever there were any Heretick that had so base a thought of the Power and Conduct of Jesus Christ since they themselves who will not acknowledge him for a God hold nevertheless that his conduct was divine and that God himself with whom he had an alliance and very peculiar union of affection and perfect correspondence of will acted by him and he by the Spirit of God who conducted and governed him And if the Jesuits themselves had not set on foot and published in their Writings these excesses against Jesus Christ never heard of until this present there are few persons that would have believed or who durst have objected to them so great an impiety as which renders Religion altogether humane outward and politick though it be contained in the bottom of their Doctrine and be a necessary and evident consequence of the Principle of their Divinity which we examine in this Chapter For the Power of the Church and that which the Pope and the Bishops exercise in the Church being given them by Jesus Christ and being the power of Jesus Christ himself whose place they hold and person they represent it thence follows that if the power of the Church and its Pastors be humane that of Jesus Christ is so also and that if the Church in the vertue of the Authority which it hath received of Jesus Christ cannot command internal and spiritual acts of vertues and exercises of Religion the power of Jesus Christ is likewise bounded to the external and his Laws oblige only to the external part of that which he hath commanded himself in the Gospel or by the Apostles in their Writings being in this like the power of the Princes of the Earth who have an humane Authority and external conduct which obliges their Subjects to no other thing than to observe the external part of what they command and to do precisely that which they say and express in their Commands This is so as Amicus speaks of Jesus Christ Putandum est Christum praecepta hominibus dedisse more humano quo solent terrestres Principes suis subditis praecepta dare quae non obligant nisi ad id quod exprimitur But that we may see yet more clearly that these so strange discourses and propositions are not found by chance in the Books of the Jesuits but are as I have said the sequels of their Maxims which they bring forth upon a formal design they have to debase the Church in its Pastors and to render the Kingdom of Jesus Christ all carnal and earthly as they have said that the power of the Church and its conduct is only humane and like that of the Princes of the Earth politick and civil Magistrates they say also that the vertue and Holiness required of them who enter into the Offices of the Church and to be exercised by them is only humane external and politick For Father Celot after he had divided piety into that which is internal and true and that which is only external and apparent saith that this latter suffices to the exercise of the Offices of the Church I call saith he the Holiness whereof the question here proceeds external and there needs not precisely any other to Jurisdiction and Hierarchick functions Which he expresses also in such manner and in terms so strong and express that I dare well say that the most criminal and infamous persons are not unworthy of an Episcopal Charge considered in it self nor because of its greatness and Holiness but only by reason of the Ordinance of the Church which hath judged them uncapable 1 Gratiani sententia est câ—…minibus nonnullis infames ab Episcopatu procul haberi non vi stauâ—s ipsius sed optimo Ecclesiae instituto eximiam quantum quidem fieri pâ—…test sanctitatem in ministris suis exigentis Celot lib. 9. cap. 20. pag. 947. Gratian holds saith he that he who is made infamous by some crime is excluded from being a Bishop not by the proper condition of Episcopacy but by the Ordinance of the Church which requires in its Ministers the greatest Holiness that is possible But always external because it cannot demand any other having no power of the internal For this cause they fear not to say that we may advance our kindred or friends to the highest Offices in the Church 2 Attamen ego fieri dicam sint vitio eos etiam assumi posse qui non sunt perfectioris virtutis modo politicis virturibus sint praediti Ibid. though they be no Saints provided they have politick and apparent vertues And that you may not contemn all these vertues he calls them perfect and maintains this name may be given them with reason because they appear such in the eyes of men And he pretends that we ought thus understand the vertues which S. Paul requires in a Bishop 1 Quas tu perfectiores ego illustiores hominum oculis magis expositas voco indeque ostendo caput illud tuum Episcopalis perfectionis quod perfectiores virtutes exigat facile explicari de splendidioribus politicisque non de iis quae majorem Dei amorem pariunt Ibid. The vertues saith he speaking to Mr. Hallier which you call most perfect I call most resplendent and most remarkable in the sight of men and I shew that which you call perfection of the Episcopal estate which requires more perfect vertues than the common ones may easily be understood of more resplendent and politick and not of those which produce a more perfect love of God This is that which he had exprest a little before in other terms when he propounded as a certainty 2 Apostolus certe sive ad Titum sive ad Timotheum virtutes non admodum supra vulgares desiderat in Episcopo Ibid. pag. 946. That the vertues which S. Paul required in a Bishop writing to Titus or Timothy are not at all above the vulgar Finally it will appear by these excesses which would seem to us incredible if our eyes did not oblige us to believe in seeing and reading them in the Books of the Jesuits that these men destroy the Church from its Foundation and make it altogether external humane and politick And this is that Lessius saith in express terms calling it a Body politick Corpus politicum After this we cannot think it strange if other Jesuits in conformity to the Opinions and in consequence to the common Doctrines of the Society have said that there need only politick vertues to govern the Church and to exercise its principal Offices which are Government and Policy and that its Laws are but humane and politick which oblige only to the external part of its Commands not only in those made by the Ministers of Jesus Christ but by Jesus Christ himself who according to these Doctors hath commanded nothing but in an humane manner as other Princes do So that whereas Jesus Christ hath called his Kingdom not of this world the Jesuits maintain that it is and like to that of the Princes of the Earth And whereas he hath said that his Kingdom is within us and in the innermost parts of our Souls they maintain on the contrary that it is external and without us and that the Church which is his Kingdom is no other than a politick Body and Church And so by the wonderful Judgment of God they fall into the condemnation which S. Cyprian hath pronounced so many Ages ago against the Novatian Hereticks who introduced an humane Church Ecclesiam humanam faciunt And in this they make themselves like the Libertines of our times who reduce all Religion into Policy and deserve as well as they to bear the name of Politicks which they would injuriously and falsly attribute unto the Church and its Pastors by representing and rendring as much as they can both their Authority and Government altogether humane and politick FINIS