no lesse easie then the former For a reason may be convincing in respect of one man which is not so unto another and he who favours an opinion may find it good when he who is of a contrary opinion may think it weak and an obstinate person will not suffer himself to be convinced by one reason and at worst he may easily perswade himself that when he cannot answer solidly the reasons of his adversaries some other more learned then he may do it This is that Tambourin affirms upon the Decalogue So that by these two conditions all sorts of opinions are easily made probable For on one side those which of themselves have neither probability nor truth nay become probable if we can find any plausible reason to sustain them and on the other side a proposition most assured and best established by Tradition by demonstration and faith it self will become onely probable considered by humane reason which is this Jesuits rule to discern of probable opinions For what reason so ever you can bring to prove it they who know the evasions of the Schools may elude it by some distinction or imagine that it may be eluded by some other and so it shall not be convincing and by consequence the proposition shall be onely probable by the definition of the Jesuits He pretends also that the e Infertur 2. unius Doctoris probi docti auctoritatem opinionem reddere probabilem quia non leve fundamentum est ejus auctoritas Ibid. n. 134. authority of one honest and knowing man makes an opinion probable because this authority is a foundation which is not of little consideration And though his Author be alone in his opinion they hold that his opinion ceases not to be probable provided that he believes that he hath reason to sustain it against all others f A communi opinione non facile recedendum viro tamen docto qui utriusque partis fundamenta perpenderit licet si suam etsi singularem probabiliorem judicet Ibid. n. 135. Because although we ought not easily divide from the common opinion yet it is lawful for a learned man if after he hath poised the grounds of the two opinions he judge that his own though singular is the more probable And by consequence others may follow his advice and repose themselves on him for their Salvation especially if they have not been Students and made profession of learning For this Jesuit assures us that g Unus etiam indoctus potest sequi alterius docti singularem sententiam Confidit enim prudenter doctrinae ejus Ibid. a man who is not learned may follow the opinion of him that is though it be a singular one For prudence wills that he confide in his Doctrine He onely would have us to take heed that this Doctor so singular in his opinion be none of the ancients So that if a man knows for certain that one or more of the ancient Doctors have heretofore held and taught publickly a proposition it must not prevail so far with us for all that as to believe therefore that it is probable if it be not approved by the Casuists and Divines of our times h Parum versato in mo alibus non liceâ— quodcunque in uno bel altero Doctore ex antiquioribus invenerit sequi non sciat etiam à recentioribus illam sententiam teueri Ibid. num 136. It is not lawful saith he for one that is not well verst in moral Divinity to follow all that he shall find in one or two ancient Doctors if he do not know that it is also the judgement of the moderns He pretends then that a new Divine may make his opinion probable against the judgement of all others by his own sole authority and that nevertheless many Doctors of the Church have not together the same credit because as Reginaldus and Celot after him say in the name of all the Society i Quae circa fidem emergunt difficultates eae sunt à veteribus hauriendae quae vero circa mores homine Christiono dignos à novitis scriptoribus the resolution of difficulties which concern faith must be taken from the ancients but that which concerns the life and manners of Christians ought to be taken out of the modern authors This seems to be the extreamest debasement and contempt of that can be done to them whom all antiquity and the whole Church have honoured as their Fathers and Masters not onely to defeat them of this quality but to set them below the meanest Authors and the last Divines of these times to whom is given the power and authority to make an opinion probable by their single approbation and by their single opinion secluding that of all others and this right is refused to the Fathers of the Church though they be many consenting together in the same judgement submitting them to the new Divines as their Masters and Judges in such manner as it is not lawful to hear them if they be not approved by the moderns I know not that the hereticks have said any thing more outragious and insolent against the Fathers of the Church Escobar knows not to be more reasonable in the point of probability then his Fraternity since he makes profession to report nothing but their opinions He proposes this question k Varietas opinionum inter superiorem subditum adest teneturne subditus obedire Escobar in preoem exam 3. n. 31. p 30. when a Superiour and those that are under his charge are of different apprehensions is the inferiour bound to obey him The first opinion he relates is that of l Asserit Salas teneri subditum obedire qurties potest absque peccato Salas who holds that the inferiour is bound to obey always whilst he may do it without sin The other opinion which he sets latter as the more probable is that of m At Castro Pelao Quando subditus inquit nititur opinione probabili quod praeceptum sit illicitum vel extra superior is jurisdictionem potest non obedire quia â—nicuique fas est sequi probabilem opinionem Castro-Palao who saith that when an inferier believes according to a probable opinion that the command of his Superiour is unjust or that he exceedeth the bounds of his jurisdiction he may disobey him because it is lawful for all men to follow a probable opinion According to this maxime there will be no more Superiours in the Church nor in the World nor obedience unto them it being manifest that there is no subject nor inferiour who cannot easily think in himself that the command of his Superiour is unjust and find reasons too to perswade himself of it and others also or at the least meet some Casuist who will tell him that it is probable that his Superiour hath gone beyond his power or hath no reason to command this and therefore he is not obliged to obey him So the authority of all forts
imprinted and taught publickly is thought to sweeten its Laws and to moderate them according to these Explications As if the Church approved all things it tolerates or which comes not to its knowledge A new Inquisition altogether extraordinary would need to be established to examine all the Errours which are in the new Books And because the Pastors of the Church dissemble them sometimes and suffer them with sorrow and groaning feeing at present neither means nor disposition to correct or repress them it is to do them great wrong and to abuse unjustly their patience and forbearance to draw from thence advantage to deceive the world and to make the Commonalty and simple people believe that the Bishops approve by their silence all that they condemn not openly though they frequently lament it before God See here how errours and abuses slide into the Church and establish themselves therein by little and little they that have introduced them pretending at last to make them pass for Laws and Rules of the Church Bauny in his Sum cap. 27. pag. 181. proposes also this question Whether it be satisfactory to the Precept of hearing Mass to hear one part of it of one Priest and another of a second different from the first He quotes Emanuel Sa and others who hold the affirmative and approving this opinion he adds I hold it for true for that hearing it in that manner that is done which the Church would have For it is true to say that he who hears of one Priest saying the Mass after he is entred into the Church that which follows the Consecration unto the end and of a second who succeeds the first that which goes before the Consecration hath heard all the Mass since he hath been found present indeed at all its parts He stays not here He saith moreover that we may not only hear the Mass in this manner in parts at twice when two Priests say it in course and successively without interruption but also at thrice or four times and more with interruption and at as great a distance of time as we will And because he saw that this opinion might be ill received because of its novelty he would make it passable under the name of Azor that we might not believe that he invented it himself It is demanded saith he if this ought to be done in an uninterrupted succession and without intermission of time Azor p. 1. lib. 7. cap. 3. q. 3. answers no and that dividing it we may at divers times attend unto so many parts of the Mass as may make up one entire Mass That is to say that we may hear it of so many different Priests as there are parts in the Mass provided that what we have heard of every one apart being joyned together contain all that is said in a Mass and though the Priests say these Masses at far distant times and Altars we fail not by hearing them in this manner to satisfie the Commandment of the Church and to have truly heard an entire Mass composed of parts so different and incoherent It were better to oppose the Commandment of the Church openly than to make sport with it in so ridiculous a manner and with so strange a liberty which can be good for nothing but to make the Mass and all Religion contemptible to Hereticks and Atheists In the mean time this goodly reason which suffices to fulfil the Precept of the Church by attending at all parts of the Mass in what manner soever we hear them whether it be in a continued succession and at once or by many parts and at divers times hath brought things to such a pass that some exceed so far as to say that entring into a Church where we find two Priests at two Altars whereof the one hath newly begun his Mass and the other is at the middle of his if we attend at once to the one from the beginning unto the middle and to the other from the middle unto the end we shall thereby discharge our duty of hearing Mass Bauny cites for this opinion Azor and some others and Azor speaks in these terms If that be true which the second opinion affirms I see nothing to hinder but he may fulfil the Precept who entring into a Church hears the Mass in two parts of two several Priests who say it at the same time For as for attention he may lend it to them both at once For this cause I approve this opinion not because it is grounded on a sufficiently forcible reason but because it is supported by the Authority of considerable persons He acknowledges that this opinion is ridiculous in it self and contrary to the Commandments of the Church and the respect which is due unto the Mass and is also without reason and solid foundation and for all that he forbears not to approve it for fear of disobliging and reproaching those who maintain it to whose Authority he chuses rather to submit his Judgment than to that of the Church and Reason Coninck saith the same thing and he approves also this opinion as the more probable though he follows it not being restrained by this single consideration 2 Quia Doctores non â—odem modo asserunt hunc satisfacere sicut priorem Coninck supra That the Doctors do not assure us that this latter doth fulfil the Precept as well as they do for the former Here it is remarkable what submission and respect these Casuists have for one another which proceed so far as to make them renounce reason and truth rather than to separate from and contradict one anothers opinions if it be not rather some combination in a faction or private interest that obliges them thereunto They give themselves the liberty to reject the holy Fathers and to prefer their proper imaginations and new opinions before the ancient Doctrine of those Great Masters of Divinity as we have observed on many occasions and they are very tender of departing from the opinions of the Causists of these times though they doubt that they are far off from reason and truth establishing by this means the Casuists as Judges and Masters of truth and their novel opinions as the Law and Rule of Manners and Religion Tolet treating of this subject speaks thus 3 Aliqui volunt quod si quis mediam Misâ—am audireâ— ab uno Sacerdote reliquum ab alio quod satisfactret praecepto Nam Miffam integram audirer mihi videtur probabile Tolet. Instit Saterd lib. 6. cap. 7. num 8. pag. 1030. There are some who say that if one hear the half of a Mass of one Priest and the rest of another he doth thereby satisfie the Precept us well as if he had heard the whole Mass entire And this seems probable unto me Escobar takes it for granted as certain and general that it is lawful to hear the Mass in parts of divers Priests and afterwards he makes a person that advises with him to talk
in these dishonest looks leaves every one to his own judgement and to his own conscience to do that which he pleaseth qua in re o uisque satisfaciat suae conscientiae in the same manner Escobar leaves every one to his liberty in particular to follow his own sense in a matter so dangerous and to rule himself by his complexion and age consulatur cujusque complexio aetas There is nothing that carries men more strongly to impâ—rity then Stage-plays and particularly those which represent dishonest things For in other sensual objects and divertisements there are but one or two senses commonly that are satisfied but in Stage-plays all the senses in a manner are affected are almost all engaged in impurity by sensible images and representations which hath obliged the Saints to condemn them so often and to turn men away from them as one of the most dreadful inventions of the Devil and most capable to destroy souls For this cause Escobar speaks according to the truth where he saith a Râ—praesentantes comedias res turpes conti nentes vel eo modo ut ad venerem excitent ut plurimum mortaliter peccant Escobar tr 1 Exam. 8 c. 1. n. 3. p. 138. They who act Comedies wherein dishonest things are contained or represented in such manner as ordinarily to excite impurity sin mortally But if the Comedians finde this proposition at first sight to be rigorous I am assured that they will receive it without much trouble when they shall understand that which follows For after he had condemned of mortal sin those who act Comedies he adds that b Porro audientes obserentiam ob abquem bonum sinem non peccant ob curiositatem aut levitatem venialiter delinquunt Ibid. p. 3. p. 13â—9 those that go thither to learn something or for any other good end sin not at all and if they go thither of curiosity or lightness they sin onely venially These Stage-players will easily satisfie themselves by this last proposition seeing it destroys the former and shews clear enough that their Profession is in effect good ar at least indifferent for there is no appearance that one can be a partaker in an other mans sin or be present voluntarily without cause by lightnesse or onely to please his curiosity at a wicked action and an exercise which of it self is a mortal sin and draws on to sin being St. Paul doth testifie that not onely they who do evil are worthy of death but they also who consent thereto that is to say those who approve it by their actions by their words by their presence and even by their silence So that if they who act Stage-plays sin mortally as Escobar saith in his first proposition it follows according to St. Paul that those who go to bear them expressely upon lightness and curiosity make themselves partakers of their sin And if on the contrary they who go to them sin not at all or sin venially as the same Escobar saith though they go thither through lightness and more curiosity it will follow that they who act the Comedies do not sin at all neither or sin but venially contrary to what Escobar affirms in his first proposition and against the judgement of all the Saints Filliutius in the place which I have cited speaks of Stage-playes almost like Escobar c Si ob solam curiosiatem audiantur vel delectationem representationis non rerum representatarum alioquin non sit probabile pericu'um lapsus in mortale non excedit veniale Filliutiu mor. tom 2. Tr. 30. v. 10. n. 212. If one goes thither saith he only for curiositie or for the pleasure he takes in beholding good Actors and not of the things which they represent this is but a venial sinne provided that he come not thereby in apparent danger of falling into mortal sin And to shew that he esteems this venial sin to be a very small one and that commonly there is even none at all in attending on these filthy and dishonest Stage-playes he permits this to the Ecclesiastiques d Non etiam Clerici peccant sublato scandalo quod sere non intercedit ex Sanchez quia srequentissime intersunt Ibid. The Ecclesiastiques themselves saith he sin not in going to a Stage-play provided that it be without scandal which hardly happens at all saith Sanchez because they go thither very frequently He saith that Ecclesiastiques sin not in going to Stage-playes provided they can go thither without scandal and at the same time he declares that there is no scandal therein because they go thither very frequently It is true and we see it too well at this day that the greatest crimes cause no horror nor offend the world but only when they are not common as soon as they become so they cease to cause horror and daunt no more the spirits of men and often times they passe even for innocent actions For what concerns dishonest touches Escobar saith generally that they are permitted betwixt persons espoused and relates this as the opinion of Sanchez and many others e Sanchez alu multi affirmant licere si absit pollutionis consensus in rem illicitam periculum Escobar tr 1. Exam. 8. n. 74. d. 149. sect 3. Sanchâ—… saith he and many others assure us that they are permitted provided that no danger of falling into pollution come thereby nor of giving consent unto any unlawfull thing He also makes Sanchez speak more boldly in this point citing him again the second time f Sanchez citatus ait licere oscula tactuâ— externos etiam si secutura pollutio praevideatur dummodo adsit justa causa sponso scilicet ad vitandum inurbanitatis seu austeritatis not am Ibid. n. 74. Sanchez whom I have already cited saith that kisses and touches of the body are permitted to persons betrothed though they foresee that pollution will follow thereon provided the man be moved to it by some just reason as namely that he may not appear to be of an ill humour or too austere It is better according to Sanchez and Escobar to give a mans self up to impurity and unnatural excesse than to passe for an uncivil person before men or women Filliutius reports it as an opinion of the same Sanchez g Non esse mortale nec saepe veniale exosculari molles infamium carnes Filliutius moral tom 2. tract 30. c. 9 n. 171. p. 321. that it is no mortal fin nor commonly a venial one to kisse the tender and delicate flesh of children h Etiamsi fiant ob solam delectationem naturaliter consequentem crunt ad summum peccata venialia Ibid. n. 176. And speaking of touches and kisses which are given for pleasure only he saith that they can be but venial sins and besides he testifies that he could hardly condemn them of venial sin Erunt ad summum peccata venialia And a little after having made this question i
the world and dispenseth with all sort of persons for the fidelity and obedience they owe to whomsoever it be Sanchez joyns a reason to the example and authority that he may yet more confirm the possession and use of these equivocations f Quorum omnium ea est ratio quiâ—etsi interrogans excladat eo ipso omnem alium modum sciendi responsio ex se id significet id tamen verum est ex formali iniqua interrogant is intentione cui imputari debet repugnantia in ipsis verbis interrogatione Ibid. The reason of all this saith he is because though he who interrogates in this sort reduces his demand to one sole sence excluding all others and that the answer hath in it self a reference unto this sence notwithstanding this is true onely because of the ill intention of him who interrogates to which ought to be imputed the discordance betwixt the Author and the interrogations It suffices not him to justify him who forswears himself before the civil Officers or before a Judge that examines him juridically but he casts this perjury and crime upon the Judge himself He confesses that there is falsity and by consequence perjury in the answer of those who make use of these equivocations in the manner he teaches them to illude the intergatories of a Judge and he notes himself this falsity and perjury though he expresse it modestly enough calling it g Repugnantia in ipsis verbis interrogatione a repugnance and discordance from the answer of the persons that are forsworn and the intergatories which a Judge or other Magistrate puts to him And because he will not have this crime fall on them who commit it by his counsel and his order he casts it upon the Officer or the Judge h Cut imputari debet repugnantiain ipsis verbis interrogatione to whom must be imputed saith he the discordance which is found betwixt the answer and the interrogation Though both the one and the other are in no wise accessory thereto and give onely occasion to commit it by forbidding it expressely and using all the precaution they could to hinder it So that there is nothing to be imputed unto them on this occasion but onely that they desired him to speak sincerely and would hinder him from using equivocations of which this Jesuit believes he hath right to make use And this is that without doubt for which he imputes the malice to the Judge that he would hinder the accused from using his right that he hath and cause him to speak sincerely where he hath right to speak equivocally and by consequence to condemn him of injustice and malice who would hinder him from using this right He then sets the Judge in the place of the malefactor and the malefactor in the place of the Judge making the malefactor Judge of his Judge himself and giving him liberty to judge and condemn him even when he forswears himself in his presence by answering according to his own fancy and not according to the Judges interrogatory and makes him say unto his Judge unawares to him for this is the secret and the retentum of the equivocation which passeth inwardly in his minde i Non ut tu in iniquitate tua rogâ—o sed ut teneris tanquà m Judex interrogare I answer thee not in the manner which thou dost examine me maliciously but in the manner thou oughtest to examine me as a Judge Which he testifies yet more clearly when he saith that all this disguisement deceit and lying of this man who forswears himself k Ex formali iniqua interrogantis intentione cui imputari debet repugnantia in verbis ipsis interrogatione comes from the wicked intention of him that examines him to which ought to be imputed the discordance which is found betwixt the answer and the interrogation But he justifies highly the lyar and the perjurer saying l Utitur jure suo respondendo ad mentem legitimam quae inesse debet Ibid. pag 31. he makes use of his right in answering his Judge following the lawful thought which he ought to have and not following that which he hath maliciously That is to say not onely reforming the Sentence of his Judge but in condemning his judgement his thoughts his proceeding as of a mischievous or ignorant man who knows not how to execute his charge and he doth all this lawfully if we believe Sanchez as having a particular right which this Jesuit hath given them utitur jure suo From these principles and conclusions Sanchez draws this conclusion to establish these equivocations m Quare idem consco ob candem rationem quantumcunque reduplicet inquus interrogator ut juret se nulla aequivecatioâ—e uti absque omni prorsus aequivocatione id intelligere Adhuc enim jurare potest intelligendo ita ut plane debeat loqui explicare vel aliud mente concipendo quo verum id reddatur Ibid. p. 31. For this cause I am always of this judgement for this same reason whatsoever the Judge urgeth who interrogates unjusâ—lyâ— so fareven as to make the examinant swear that he doth not make use of equivocations and that he intends that which he saith without any equivocation For he may also swear understanding secretly that he doth it as far as he is obliged to speak clearly and to expound himself or by forming some other thought which may make his answer true So that what instance soever the Judge can make or other person that examines him and conjures him to speak the truth although he oblige him to promise and even make him to swear that he will answer sincerely and not make use of any equivocation notwithstanding after his promise and after his oath he may yet delude the Judge and him that examines him and answer by equivocation even then when he promiseth and sweareth that he will not make use thereof n Intelligendo ita ut plaene debeat loqui explicare Vel aliud mente concipicendo quo vtrum id reddatur understanding always that he speaks and answers him as he ought that is according to the right he thinks he hath if he know no other occasion or if there come in his mind no other sence to which he may secretly referre his words to give them some colour and some appearance of truth His reason is the self-same which he hath already made often use of o Quia cum non teneatur ad formalem interrogantis mentem respondere sed ad debitam illa responsio juxta debitam ejus mentem vera est Ibid. pag. 31. because he is not obliged to answer to the intention and the thoughts which he hath who examines him but to that which he ought to have his answer is true following this intention and this thought which he ought to have This man doth not say that which he thinks also he answers not that which
Sa to affirm c Fabellam recitare ut auditores excitentur ad pie audiendum non est peccatum Sa verh Praedicare num 5. p. 378. that it was no sin to make fabulous relations in Sermons to stir up the auditors attention and devotion He speaks also more clearly in another place where he saith d Mentiri in concione in pertinentibus ad doctrinam quidam aiunt esse mortale alii non semper quod intellige si sit materia levis Sa verb. Mendacium num 2. pag. 494. that there are some who hold that it is always mortal sin to tell a lye in Preaching on any Doctrinal point but others deny it And he relates the opinion of these latter adding onely that it must be understood onely when the matter is sleight If to lye in the chair in points of Doctrine according to this Jesuit be but a venial sin he without doubt would make no great matter of lyes which a Preacher should speak in other matters and it may be he might give them in this the same liberty that he gives them to tell tales generally and without exception He condemns them not more rigorously who tell lyes in confession e Mentiri in consessions de peccatis venialibus out de aliis confessis mortalibus veniale solum peccatum est etiamsi illa antea apud se proposuisset vere confiteri Sa verb. Confessio n. 12. p. 88. It is but a venial sin saith he to lye unto a Confessor in confessing venial or mortal sins formerly confessed though after resolution to confesse them truly Escobar saith the same and adds some thing f Mendacium de peccaâ—o veniali veniale est nisi illud veniale esset totalis confessionis materia quia tunc daretur absolutio fine materia Sacramentum nullum esset Suarez tom 4. n. 3. par disp 22. sect 10. n. 6. Alii negant quia omne mendacium de veniali est res levis Escob tr 7. ex 4. n. 107. p. 816. Suarez holds saith he that to lye in confessing a venial sin is but a venial sin provided that this venial sin be not all the matter of the confession for in this case the absolution will have no subject and the Sacrament will be nul Others hold the contrary for that a lye which consists in a sleight and venial matter is always sleight A lyetold in confession and which makes the Sacrament null in the judgement of this Jesuit and of those whose judgement he reports seems to him a very sleight thing to furnish matter for a mortal sin though it destroy a Sacrament and turn it into an action profane and sacrilegious It is easie to see if this be to honour the Truth and the Sacrament of penance which by a particular reason may be called the Sacrament of Truth because there a man acknowledgeth that which he is truly confessing himself a sinner before God and confessing his sins before a Priest who holds the place of God nevertheless this Divinity teaches that it is no great matter to lye in this Sacrament and that fault committed herein ought to be considered according to the matter of the sin rather then by the holinesse of the Sacrament in such manner that if the matter about which the lye is told be not an important thing in it self the sin is but sleight though thereby the Sacrament be profaned made nul and sacrilegious This Jesuit commits yet a greater extravagance against the truth when he saith that it may be opposed with a resolution altogether formal that is to say by pure malice though it be acknowledged in the heart without becoming guilty of any great fault g Impugnaeâ—e perspicuam veritatem animo impugnandt contradicendi est peccatum grave aut leve juxta materiae gravitatem aut levitatem Escobar tract 2. exam 2. cap. 1. num 14. pag. 292 To conflict with the truth saith he which is evident with a formal design to oppose and contradict it is great or little according as the truth in hand is of great or little consequence He considers not the greatness of the Majesty of God who is encountred in the Truth and who is Truth it self neither doth he any more consider the wicked disposition of him who impugnes the truth by an aversion or contempt which he hath towards it opposing it by a formal design to resist and destroy it though he know it evidently animo impugnandi contradicendi perspicuam veritatem If when the King speaks any of his Officers should rise up and contradict him publickly in a thing which he knew himself to be just and true being induced to this excesse onely by insolence and to oppose himself against the King and to contradict him without cause it is certain he would be treated as in guilty of high treason and his action would passe in the judgement of all the world for an unsufferable outrage and contempt of Royal Majesty though the subject upon which he thus opposed the King were not of great importance And yet Escobar would that it should be accompted but a sleight fault to deal thus with God and his Truth One passage alone of Sanchez which I will rehearse here may suffice to prove that which I have said that in things purely spiritual the Jesuits find scarcely any sufficent matter for mortal sin h Res quantumvis sacras principal ter ob vanam gloriam officere ut Sacramenta omnia ministrare vel recipere sacram celebrare non excedit culpam venialem Sanchez op mor. l. 1. c. 3. n. 1. p. 9. Et si debitus ordo pervertatur ea tamen perversio non tanti est ut adea gravis injuria rebus spiritualibus inseratur ut poena aeterna digna sit Ibid. To perform of vanity saith he the most sacred actions as to administer the Sacraments or to receive them or to celebrate the most Holy Masse for vain glory can be but a venial sin though vain glory be proposed as the principal end He acknowledges that there is disorder in this action but he pretends that it is of small consequence and that the injury that is done to God and things Spiritual and Divine in making them subservient to vain glory is not a thing so considerable as to merit the disfavour of God and that it conserve for a matter to mortal sin and a cause of eternal damnation It is not an easie thing to judge what reason he may have thus to diminish this sin if he acknowledge that there may possibly be great ones in Spiritual matters For indeed it will be a hard thing to find greater then this considered by the light of Faith then to say Masse for vanity as the principal end thereof this is properly to sacrifice to vanity or to the Devil who is the god of vanity the body of Jesus Christ which is horrible onely to think And if the sacrifice of the Masse may be
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
Filliutius had before Escobar taught that which he saith of lyes made in confession about venial sin 2 Mentiri circa materiam non necessariam ut sunt peccata venialia negando quod factum est sic non est mortale Filliut t 1. mor. qq tr 7. cap. 4. num 112. pag. 180. To lye saith he in a thing which is no necessary matter of confession as are venial sins in denying that which is done is only a venial sin Emanuel Sa is of the same opinion and he maintains that the case is the same in mortal sins which have been confessed already 3 Mentiri in confessione de peccatis venialibus aut de aliàs confessis mortalibus veniale tantum peccatum est etiamsi ille antea proposuisset apud se vere confieri Sa verb. Confessio num 12. pag. 88. To lye in confession saith he in matter of venial sins or of mortal which have been already confessed is but a venial sin though the design were at first to confess them I might here relate also other expedients which the Jesuits give to surprise and deceive a Confessor but I shall do it more commodiously in an express Chapter speaking of Penitents and the advice necessary unto them for their confessing themselves aright I will conclude this Article by a resolution which Escobar gives to a difficulty which he propounds 4 Dixisti debere repeti confessionem quando fuit invalida An iteranda ex eo quod facta luerit alio fine principaliter quam ob remissionem peccatorum 5 Non dummodo remissio intendatur saltem ut finis minus principalis in eo non peccetur mortaliter quia in eo casu est intentio recipiendi Sacramentum omnia ad ejus valorem requisita Escob 7. ex 4. num 119. pag. 818. I have already taught you saith he that the confession which was null and invalid ought to be repeated is it also to be repeated when it is made upon some other principal design then to obtain pardon of sins His Answer is No provided that remission of sins be propounded at the least as the less principal and herein is no mortal sin because there is always an intention to receive the Sacrament and all that which is necessary to make it valid He believes then that it is but a small sin to prefer some humane and temporal consideration to Salvation and pardon of sins that it is not to prophane the Sacrament to refer it principally to a temporal end that this is not to dishonour God much to testifie the little respect which is had for his grace and friendship even then when it is demanded by preferring some temporal thing before it which is respected as principal design propounded and defired to be received by means of the Sacrament of Penance much rather than his amity and reconciliation with him which he makes a shew to desire after he had so despised it pretending to repair this contempt by another contempt and to return into favour by a motion so little sincere and so injurious to his infinite greatness elevated above all Creatures If a Malefactor guilty of high Treason should present himself before a King in this manner confessing that he was more moved with some petty interest than with his crime and so much as not speaking to him nor demanding of him his grace but only after he hath testified his passion for this particular interest he would be judged of all the world unworthy to obtain the grace which he demands and worthy to be chased from the Kings presence and punished for this insolence as much or more than for any other fault Yet they would have this treatment which is unworthy of man to be worthy of God and that God should be content with a kind of honour which a man would hold for an injury ARTICLE III. Of Absolution That the Jesuits make it depend on the Opinion and the Will of the Penitent rather than the Disposition and Judgment of the Confessor ABsolution is a Judgment which the Priest pronounceth on Gods behalf in favour of the Penitent by which he forgives him his sins after the cognizance which he hath received from himself of the remedies which he hath applyed and the good effects and holy dispositions which they have produced in him to establish him in the Grace of God The Divinity of the Jesuits ruines this part of the Sacrament of Penance as well as the other taking from the Priest the authority and quality of a Judge and Superior and subjects him to the Penitent in such manner that he must follow him in the Judgment that he ought to make of his sins and of his estate and of his disposition to receive absolution and obliging him to bear himself according to what he says and wills and to give him absolution as oft as he demands it though the Confessor judge him unworthy and intirely uncapable thereof From these Maxims it is that Bauny in his Sum Chap. 45. pag. 702. saith that the Confessor before he absolve the Penitent shall examine him if he have no more to say if he be sorry with all his heart for offending God if he purpose to serve him well and faithfully for the time to come by a voiding all mortal sin which being said thus universally and in common is sufficient for receiving Sacramental absolution Nay we may be excused from examining him in this manner Dicastillus easeth the Confessor of this trouble 1 Poenitenti affirmanti se habere retractationem propositum non peccandl credendum est nec tamen necesse est id semper ab illo interrogare maxime quando personae satis alioquin instructae sunt accedunt ad confessionem nullo modo coactae Dicastill de Poenit. It is not always necessary saith he to put these questions to him especially if they be persons well instructed and who come freely and without constraint to the Tribunal of Confession So all the disposition requisite for receiving absolution is reduced to words and those also universal and to resolutions made in general upon which the Confessor shall be obliged to relye and to believe all those who shall offer him such discourse and make him such promises because they are their own accusers defenders and witnesses cum ipsi sint sui accusatores defensores testes though oftentimes it be supposed that such resolutions come but from the teeth outwards as the same Father Bauny hath written a little after pag. 717. Emanuel Sa saith the same thing and more also 2 Absolvi potest qui proponit abstinere à peccato etiamsi credat se proposito non staturum Sa verb. Absolutio num 12. pag. 5. We may absolve saith he him who resolves to abstain from sin though he himself believe that he shall not hold his resolution though he be assuredly perswaded of it certè sibi persuadeat 3 Tamb num 753. cap.
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
the Church nor of Princes to punish Blasphemers nor count that amongst the Commandments of God which forbids blasphemy since according to the Divinity of this Father there will be none in effect they will be only sins of irreverence and venial The other Jesuits seem more moderate on this subject but if they appear in this less to blame they are it may be more indeed and they are much more dangerous than Bauny For the vice that proceeds to extremity and is visible in its excess is only for them that have no conscience but it surprises and insensibly engages those who have yet some fear of God when it is propounded with some temperament and when it is covered with some pretence which serves as a reason to commit it without scruple Escobar by Example in his Moral Divinity places amongst Problematick Questions whether all blasphemy be mortal sin And though he rank himself indeed amongst them that hold the affirmative yet he forbears not to say that it is no blasphemy when 1 Amans amasism Deam suam suum vocitat idolum a Lover calls his Mistress his Goddess and his Idol For after he had related divers opinions about this question according to his custom he joyns himself to those who excuse it from blasphemy and saith 2 Si coram medioctiter prudentibus obloquatur nullatenus blasphemiae nota afficiendus est hujusmodi utens locutionibus quia amanti a peria est adulatio at coram ruâ—icis haud cum omnino a gravi materialis blasphemiae piaculo liberarim Escob tom 1. Theol Mor. lib. 4. probl 21. If this Lover speak before persons of indifferent discretion be ought not in any sort be esteemed a Blasphemer because it is clear that it is only flattery but if he speak before gross witted persons he would not altogether exempt him from a grand material blasphemy If this reason take place there will be no blasphemy at all unless he who hears it believe that he who utters it speaks according to his judgment so this shall be only a material blasphemy that is the matter of blasphemy only So that there will be no true blasphemies but what are uttered by Infidels and impious persons who believe they speak truth when they blaspheme And according to this Rule the Tyrians and Sidonians blasphemed not when they said unto King Herod to flatter him that he spoke as a God and not as a man And this proud King ought not to have been eaten of worms as he was by the just Judgment of God for suffering these blasphemous words since the flattery was altogether manifest This reason may be made use of for a foundation of the Proposition of Tambourin and Azor who hold that to say This is as true as the Gospel or this is as true as God is no blasphemy And their reason is because it is visible that this is an excess against the divine Truth That is to speak properly that this is no blasphemy because it is visible that it is one Sanchez saith that he who swears lightly and unconcernedly without thinking on what he saith or through vanity sins only venially 3 Juramentum cui desuit tertius comes nempe judicium quod attinet ad necessariam jurandi causam debitam reverentiam est sola venialis culpa 3 siquidem sollus vanitatis superffuitatis peccatum est Sanch. op mor lib. 3. cap. 4. num 35. p. 17. The oath saith he whereunto the third condition is wanting to wit judgment when men swear without necessity or without the respect and reverence that is requisite is but a venial sin because the irreverence herein committed is not great being only a sin of vanity or of superfluity Filliutius saith the same thing and almost in the same words 4 Si desit juramento tantum judicium hoc est si fiat absque necessitate aut utilitate peccatum aliquod committitur Tale juramentum non est mortale si desit contamptus Filliut tom 2. qq mor. tr 25. cap. 11. num 332. 333. pag. 205. If judgment only be wanting to an oath that is to say if it be uttered without necessity or utility there is in it some fault And a little after An oath is not a mortal sin if it be without contempt We must not then say any longer in the Commandment that forbids Swearing Thou shalt not swear by God in vain but only thou shalt not swear falsely since that according to these new Divines we may without great sin swear in vain and out of vanity without necessity profit occasion or reverence which in swearing is due to God whom we take for Judge and Witness Filliutius's reason is 5 Licet aliquo modo sit contra Dei authoritatem tamen quia non fit contra illam in se sicut destruitur veritas ejus per mendacium sed tantum fit contra illam non tractando illam cum debita reverentie 3 ideo tantum committitur culpa venialis Ibid. num 333. Because though this oath thus made without necessity or reverence be in some sort against the Authority of God nevertheless because it destroys it not in it self as a lye destroys his truth and is not contrary unto him otherwise than as it renders him not all the respect that is due unto him it is but a venial sin As if it were a small matter to fail of our respect towards God and to demean our selves irreverently towards him and not to be troubled for offending against his Authority provided we do not absolutely destroy it This Author considers not that to destroy truth in our selves is no less a mortal sin than to destroy it in it self which is impossible For we are obliged to have it in us as our life by loving and honouring it and to chase it from us by contempt or negligence or by preferring other things before it which please us more can be no other than a mortal sin since this is truly to kill our selves and it in us And for the Authority of God it is certain that we cannot indeed deprive him of it any more than of his Power and to deny it were to become a Fool or an Atheist Since then it cannot be destroyed in it self nor in the opinion and judgment of men that have their reason found there remains but one way to destroy it so much as may be which is by contempt and irreverence which is committed against it by using it indifferently without respect to confirm what we say swearing without necessity or occasion and even of meer vanity So that if in this case and these circumstances the sin committed against the Authority of God and the reverence which is due unto him be a slight one as these Jesuits say it is it seems that there can never be any great one according to them in this matter Filliutius proceeds farther and maintains that to swear not only without occasion and reverence but
according to the Rules of Penance He supposes also that Fasting is a remedy for his disease and profitable to his health So that in not fasting he sins against the Laws of the Church of temperance and of charity which he owes to himself hurting his health already impaired and augmenting his disease And for all that he pretends that because he is sick he is dispensed with for Fasting That is to say that the same disease which obligeth him to fast dispenseth with him for it and the Church which dispenseth with none but for to relieve their weakness agrees to this dispensation which relieves not but hurts him and pretends not to oblige him unto a Fast which if it commanded him not he could not omit without sin The same must be said of him adds the same Author who cannot sleep in the night of a considerable time unless he sup For he would be over-charged too much by fasting in this manner I would not oblige him neither to so much as to make his Collation in the morning in which case the Fast would continue without intermission though he might do it conveniently for no man is bound to do extraordinary things that he may fast and to abandon the right which he hath to eat about Noon The Indulgence of the Church in suffering and permitting to eat at Noon on Fasting-days is a right according to this Casuist which its Children may make use of against it to the neglect of its Commandment He finds not that it is needful to do any thing extraordinary nor to the least change in the order or hour of our repast to keep the Fast and obey the Church And in another place he finds it very reasonable that to content a friend for his own benefit pleasure or any the least reason in the world and even without reason we should alter the usual course of our repast and advance the time two or three hours or more if we will 1 Idemque dico de to qui de necte absque perfecta coena calefieri notabiliter nequit Ibid. Finally we must say the same so this Author goes on of him who unless he sup well is troubled to get heat because this is judged in some sort prejudicial to his health There are who pretend to be dispensed with for Fasting because it heats the blood say they and causes headach and this man would dispense with it because it chills the feet and hinders sleep I pass by these ridiculous excuses and visible contradictions and observe only that these people take the liberty to say whatsoever comes in their minds and make use of all sorts of reasons to fight against the truth and know to turn to the right and the left not as S. Paul to go unto God and conduct his neighbour thither but rather to confound the ways of God make his Commands obscure and to teach men thereupon to violate them without fear of punishment 2 I'la infirmitas notabilis est quae operationes ordinarias cujeslibet personae impedit ita ut qui consueto suo operandi modo eas exercere commode cum jejunio nequeat si Scholasticus quomodocunque cum difficultate studeat si mulier ex debilitate jejunii servitia domus incommode operetur si vie suum officium artemque jejunando difficulter exerceat ex hoc capite à jejunando legicime excussbuntur Ibid. num 17. That infirmity or some notable prejudice of health hinders the common actions of every person and we judge that he who after his usual labour cannot if he fast conveniently perform these actions is much damnified by the Fast Whence it follows that if Fasting makes a Scholars head ake or disturb his Studies if a woman cannot by reason of her Fasting conveniently attend her houshold affairs if a man perform the excercises of his profession with more difficulty for that cause he is not obliged thereto nor others such like That is to say that Fasting which is commanded for our mortification is not obliging when it mortifies us and that we may be obliged to fast we must be able to do it commodiously and without difficulty It appears clearly that according to these Maxims of the Jesuits few people are obliged to the Fasts of the Church though they have been generally instituted for all the Faithful observed in all Ages past by all those who had any fear of God of what condition soever they were and that the Church hath always thus understood it as may yet farther appear seeing that in the general Commandment which it hath given so many Ages since it doth not nor ever did except any condition exercise or sort of life But the Jesuits leave hardly any Profession which they exempt not from Fasting 3 Officium ars quam quis exercet si lit ex se laboriosa hominem per se libtrat à jejunio ita quidem etiamsi in illo exercitio quis inveniatur posse tolerare jejunium adhuc ad illud non adstringetur Arator etiam robustus patientissimusque inediae imo etiam ditissimus non obligatur ad jejunium quia per se omnes aratores excusantur ex alia parte Ecclesiae non intendit privare Fideles suo officio modoque vivendi Tambur lib. 4. decal cap. 5. sect 7. num 18. The Office or Mystery saith Tambourin which a man exercises if it be laborious as there are scarce any which are not exempts him of it self from Fasting and though there be some in the same Trade who can endure Fasting yet he is not obliged For example a strong Labourer and who can fast with ease is not obliged to fast though he be very rich because all Labourers as such are exempt And besides this the Church hath no intention to deprive the Faithful of the exercise of their Trades and course of life It must be added that in establishing the Precept of Fasting for all those who could bear it it had an intention not to exempt those who should make false pretences for their not observing it It seems that he would have us believe that the Laws of the Church regard not the Salvation of every one in particular but that they are only general Ordinances of an outward Policy and therefore odious and unjust from which every one may save and exempt himself that can He adds also more particularly 1 Dico propter authoritatem Dectorum esse probabile nullos artifices aâ—que adeo Sutores obligari ad jejunia Ibid. num 28. That it is probable because of the Authority of the Doctors who are of that Judgment that no Handicrafts and by consequence neither are Taylors obliged to fast And so the Artificers and those who labour in bodily occupations making up the greater number in comparison of whom the rest of Mankind are small in number the Precept of Fasting shall be of small use and shut up in very narrow bounds But least any resentment