he I believe with Henriquez that it were better for the Priest to make shew of putting the Hoast into the mouth of the sinner It behoves him to have a slight of hand to do this and he that knows to play this trick without being perceived may very well do others But what means is there to hinder him who is mocked in this sort and opens his mouth to take nothing that he should not perceive it and that he should not complain and not make any scandal for this is that which the Jesuits especially fear to discontent men and to give them cause of complaint Notwithstanding this Escobar assures us that he hath made use of this expedient many times and that it succeeded well with him n Quod non semel absque periculoscandali praesliti Which I have done saith he oftner than once without danger of scandal I stay not to examine this conduct I onely admire at the cunning and rarity thereof For surely there is nothing like it to be found in the Books of the Saints who have governed the Church unto our age though there wanted not sinners who in their view presented themselves to communicate unworthyly and they had at least as much zeal for the honor of Jesus Christ and for the Salvation of souls as the Jesuits and it may be said that Jesus Christ himself knew not of this secret since he made not use of it in giving Judas the communion But if this deceit hath been found out onely to hinder that Sacriledge might not be committed doth the sinner who is wholly resolved and ready to commit it in presenting himself to the communion cease to commit it before God when he receives that Hoast which he believed to be consecrated though it be not at all as Herod endeavouring to put to death the Son of God newly born committed so many murders of God as he made Infants to be killed with a design to involve our Lord in the universal massacre But although this sort of deceit were not criminal in it self yet it would not cease to be pernicious in the consequences thereof Where may we presume to finde fidelity among the Jesuits if we cannot be assured of it in the most Holy actions will they make us know by this that there is nothing of proof against their wit and subtilty and that there is nothing so Holy where their Divinity cannot find place for deceit Treachery II. POINT Of Infidelity in Promises and Oaths SECT I. Several ways of mocking God and Men without punishment and without Sin according to the Jesuits in promising that which they never intend to do and not doing that which they have promised although they are obliged thereto by Vow and by Oath GOd having brought the World out of nothing by his word and having established Religion in the world upon his promises men also have not associated themselves and do not preserve the union and peace either of states or Religion but by their faith which they give unto one another and by their promises which they make unto God Without the Word of God there would neither be World nor Religion and if men were not faithful to keep their words the Church and the World would soon become a desert and a confusion Cities would be without Government Kingdoms without Laws and civil and religious Corporations without discipline and for that cause there would be nothing but disorder division unjustice and treachery So that one may say in a sense most true that the world subsists not onely by the Word of God but also by that of men and that if God should withdraw his blessing from his Word the world would be reduced to nothing in the same manner if men were destitute of fidelity in theirs it would fal into ruine and desolation Hereby it may be judged what mischiefs and miseries they are capable to cause in the world who teach men to fail of their words and who study to furrish them continually with new inventions and new subtilties to bannish sincerity from their words and fidelity from their promises upon which is founded all the commerce and all the fellowship which they have one with an other in all sorts of professions All these inventions and all these subtilties of the Jesuits may be referred to equivotation in words and want of intention in promises the one is a means to say what one will without lying and the other an expedient to promise all things without being obliged Filliutius to authorize and facilitate all at once the practice of equivocations amongst many examples which he brings sets this down in the first place a Afferri solent exempla aliqua ut primo ejus qui promisit exterius absque intemione promittendi Si enim interrogetur an promiserit negare potest intelligendo se non promisisse promissione obligaute fic etiam jurare alioquin argeretur solvere quod non debet Filliutius tom 2. tract 25. n. 323. p. 161. They alledge saith he commonly some examples of equivocations as first of all of him that promises something outwardly without intention of promising For if one ask him if he have promised he may say no intending that he had not promised by any promise that obliged him and by consequence he may also swear for otherwise he should be constrained to pay that which he owes not He pretends that he owes not that which he hath promised and that he lyes not in forswearing it because in promising and in swearing he had no intention to promise or swear no more then to perform what he promiseth That is to say that because he had covered infidelity and perjury under a shameful disguise and hypocrisie this latter crime justifies the other two and he is innocent because he hath committed three sins at once of which every one apart had been sufficient alone to make him criminal If it be true that men are not obliged neither by their words nor oaths no more then by the Laws of God and Man which command them to keep both the one and the other but onely by the secret intention which they have in promising and swearing it is clear that we can never be assured of any person nor give any person any assurance by any protestations or oaths whatsoever Libertines and cheats may boldly couzen the whole world following these principles without injustice and they cannot be justly condemned to perform their words because they are obliged to nothing having had no intention to be obliged Sanchez hath found another means to disingage him who hath truly had an intention to promise saying that he should be dispensed with to retain that which he had promised provided that in promising he had onely a design to promise and not to perform that which he had promised See how he speaks b Teta difficultas eo pertinet quando jurans babet animum jurandi at nâ—…latenus juramento se obligandi an
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
and to indispose him towards that sickness whereof he dyed But nothing touched him more to the quick than the corruption which the Jesuits had introduced into the Morality of the Church He was a mortal enemy to their compliances and he could not bear with their presumption which bent them to consult no other in their Divinity than their own proper light He declared against their loosness in all the Ecclesiastick Conferences whereunto he was invited and he gave himself up particularly in the Sermons and Instructions which he made in the Churches to fortifie the Faithful against their pernicious Maxims His Discourses made so much deeper impression upon their Spirits because they were sustained by his own examples and the truths of Christianity were no less visible in his manners than they were intelligible in his words He handled all sorts of matters with such exactness and solidity as if he had employed all his life only in study of some one of them alone and it might be perceived that he studied in all his Discourses only to clear the understanding to touch hearts and heal diseases and not to puzzle the mind please the ears and flatter the diseased But the love which he had for the purity of Christian Morals was too great for to suffer him to rest so contented He believed that to heal well the mischiefs which the Jesuits had done the Church it was necessary to have a perfect knowledge thereof and to imitate Physitians who addict themselves to know the bottom of diseases before they apply themselves to any remedy He gave himself for this cause to read the Books of these Fathers and to extract out of them the principal Errours of which he hath composed this Book which we now publish but at length he could not but sink under so painful and afflicting a labour His patience found it self exhausted The grief he had to see the Morality of Jesus Christ so horribly disfigured seized his heart and cast him into such a languor as dryed him up by little and little and ravished him away from the Church after he had received with great resentments of Piety and Religion all the Sacraments at the hands of his upper Pastor I will not take in hand to give here an Idea of the design which this excellent Man hath had in this Work of the order which he hath observed of the reasons which he hath had to undertake it and of those in particular which have engaged him to cope with the Doctrine of the Jesuits because he hath himself given satisfaction in all these points in his Preface I shall only answer here to those who have wished that he had not discovered the Errours which are represented in this Work without refuting them by the true Principles of Christian Morality which are Scripture and Tradition They avow that this had been advantagious to the Church and it was the very design of the Author But this hinders not but that his labour although separated from the more large Refutation may have also its utility For they who are acquainted with the Affairs of the Church understand that it is no new thing simply to set down the Errours which the Corrupters of Faith and Manners have attempted to introduce into the Church without undertaking to combate them by long Reasoning and that S. Epiphanius as also S. Austin observed Historics narratione commemorans omnia nulla disputatione adversus falsitatem pro veritate decertans S. August de Hares hath only represented by way of History the pernicious Opinions of the greater part of Hereticks without taking in hand to refute them in particular rehearsing all things with an Historical Narration but not contending for the truth against falshood by any disputation I know well that there is cause to believe by that which S. Austin adds presently after that he had only an Abridgment of the Books of S. Epiphanius But I know also that if this Saint had seen them all entire he would still have discoursed after the same manner and that this Judgment may very justly be passed on them for that of eighty different Sects of which Epiphanius hath undertaken to report the Errours he only tracks the foot as I may say of them one by one and refutes in the manner of a Divine only four or five contenting himself in a few words and as it were on his way passing by them to shew the absurdity of the Conceits of those Hereticks and how far they were distanced from the truth See how he interprets himself in his Preface concerning the manner in which he had designed to handle these things In which truly this one thing we shall perform that we shall oppose against them as much as in us lies in a few words as it were an Antidote whereby we may expel their poysons and by Gods help may free any one who either wilfully or unawares happens to fall into these Heretical opinions as it were into the poyson of some Serpents In quo quidem hoc unum praestâ—bimus ut adversus illa quitquid in nobis situm erit paucis uno atque altero verbo velut antidotum apponamus quo illorum venens propulsemus secundum Deum quemlibet qui vel sponte vel invitus in haeretica illa dogmata velut serpentum virus inciderit si quidem velit ipse liberare possimus This is the same thing which the Author of this Book of Morals which is now made publick hath given us to see therein with a marvellous address and vivacity of Spirit For though he undertake not to refute these Errours of the Jesuits but only to discover them he does notwithstanding discover them without making their excesses to appear most plainly and the opposition also which they have to the truth and sound doctrine So that according to the progress by which we advance in reading this Book we find our selves insensibly convinced of the falsities of all the Maxims which are therein related and our minds filled with the opposite truths and our hearts piously animated against these so horrible corruptions and edified by the violence which we observe this Author hath done upon himself for to moderate his zeal and to keep himself back from refuting opinions so contrary to the common sense of the Faith For unto such evils deep sighs and groans are more agreeable than long discourses Cum talibuâ— malis magis prolixi gemitus fletus quam prolixi libri debeantur S. Aug. Epist 122. Indeed the arguings of the Jesuits which he relates and whereof they make use to authorize their monstrous opinions are so evidently contrary to the Principles and Maxims of the Gospel and to the light of Nature the abuse to which they put the words of Scripture and the Fathers is so visible and so gross and there needs so little discerning to see that they take them in a sense contrary to what they do indeed contain that these Authors
nomiur usurae acceptae ita miseeantur rebus usurarii fimilibus ut non possint ab eis distingui tunc dominium censetur transtatum Lessius de just jur l. 2. cap. 20. d. 18. num 136. pag. 354. if the things he has got by usury be so mingled with others their like which belong to the Vserer that one cannot distinguish them it must be presumed that the Vsurer is become a lawful possessor of them Escobar extends this answer so far as to reach a Merchant who hath received more than was due unto him saying that after he hath mingled other mens money which he hath received with his own if he to whom the money pertained demands it back again this Merchant is not obliged to restore it him according to Vasquez z Venditor accepit bona fide pecuniam cum sua commiscet teneturne comparente Domino restituere Escobar Ibid. n. 107. p. 362. A Seller saith he receives in simplicity more money than he ought and he hath mingled it with his own is he obliged to restore it when he who hath given it him comes to him to demand restitution thereof He does not ask if this Merchant be obliged to see and to certifie himself that he hath received more money than he ought he supposes without any difficulty that he ought not he enquires onely if this being true and known he be obliged to restore this money which is not his and which he hath already mingled with his own and he serves himself of the authority of Vasquez to add weight to his resolution a Negat Vasquez de restitutione c. 9. sect 2. dub ult quia non tenetur ratione iujustae acceptionis qui bona fide accepit nec rationâ—râ—i acceptae cum pecuniam acceperit in prest im bona fide assumpserit Ibid. Vasquez saith he denies it he is not obliged thereto neither by any unjust manner by which he hath received this money he having received it in honest simplicity nor by the substance of the thing which he received because he received it in payment and so took it on a good accompt and honest But if these two reasons founded upon simple good meaning which serves for a cloak to the greatest crimes that are according to the Divinity of the Jesuites as we shall shortly behold more clearly content you not and you answer this Casuist that this Merchant is destitute of honest simplicity because that he who gave him the the money came again and made him know that he had given him more then he ought to have done he will tell you for your last answer that he is come too late that the Merchant hath already mingled his money with his own and by this medley he is become thereof the legal possessour ET CUM SUA COMMISCENDO SUAM FECIT I know not what secret vertue he ascribes to the money of a covetous and unjust man to convert into his proper goods that which is anothers This is not according to that which they say commonly and most truly that those of another mingled with our own proper goods consume them and destroy them He had spoken more truly had he said that it was not the mixture but injustice and covetousness that had purchased and appropriated the others money unto this Merchant Covetousness and injustice shew themselves most manifestly 1. In doting upon ones own wealth 2. In the usurpation of that which is anothers by unlawful ways 3. When what is so obtained is retained without a will to restore it The Jesuits teaching their Disciples to love their own goods better then their Neighbours lives say that it is lawfull to kill him when he attempts to take them from us as we have already made appear and shall discover more largely when we come to speak of that commandment of God which forbids murder They teach to usurpe and unjustly to invade anothers goods in maintaining usury and in justifying or excusing the most part of the treacheries and fraud which are used in Merchandise or Traffique They teach to retain and not to restore them as I have made appear already and by thus much it is easie to judge with what exactness and fidelity they maintain the causes which they undertake being they have omitted nothing which might favour covetousness and gratifie the greedy desire which men have for the goods of this world ARTICLE VI. Unfaithfulness COvetousness carries to injustice and both the one and the other engage men in infidelity For as according to Scripture the just man lives by Faith that is to say that the exercise of Faith and fidelity is as it were the bread which nourishes us as the air which we breathe and which is the continual employment and entertainment of this life one may say on the contrary that the unjust man lives by infidelity and that if his life be well examined and we could pierce into the bottom of his heart there would nothing be found in his thoughts in his design and in all the conduct of his life but disguisements deceits and infidelity It is not onely true in the Church that just and honest men live by Faith but one may also say the same thing of all men who live together in any sort of humane Society Faith is not onely the foundation of religion and of Christian life but also that of Estates of Corporations and of civil life It is not properly to live to live amongst dissemblieg and treacherous persons no more than to live among enemies being obliged to keep our selves always upon our guard and to be in a continual distrust and disquiet for fear of being surprized upon every occasion and of losing our goods honor and life In the mean while we shall see our selves reduced to this point if we suffer our selves to be conducted by the advice of the Jesuits and if we regulate our lives by the maxime of their Divinity which doth openly allow and teach dissimulation deceit and infidelity as I shall make clearly appear by this Article Infidelity may be committed first of all in things by the sale and by the exchange of things 2. In contracts and promises 3. In discourses treaties and generally in words I will make three Points of this Article according to these three sorts of infidelity I. POINT Of diverse sorts of unfaithfulness and of deceit which may be committed in things by altering them selling them by false weights and measures and taking those which are anothers without his privity VNfaithfulness and deceit of which we speak here is a true theft disguised and covered with some false pretence of apparent reason There are many persons who are disposed to deceive but they to whom there remains some little conscience are troubled in doing it the light of nature alone which is not intirely exstinguish'd in them makes them to see clear enough in the bottom of their hearts that this is not lawfull they must needs first
Daughters There is no crime in which we may not find such like good intention and by consequence which may not be excused by this reason For this cause he proceeds and saith that he who should maintain an heretical proposition without believing it who should be a communicant or Auditor amongst the Hugenots without having his heart there but out of pure derision or to comply with the times and to accomplish his designs he ought not to be esteemed an Hugenot therefore because his understanding is not infected with errour So that not only ordinary crimes but heresie it self and Apostacy and all sorts of impieties may be excused by the secret intention of the Jesuits School and we may do all these things without being heretiques or Impious If he had not a priviledge to propound things quite contrary when he pleaseth we might represent unto him that what he saith here accords not with what he said above that he who bows his knee before an Image is an Idolater though he have no design to adore the Idol and onely feignes to do it But it was necessary he should speak so in this place where the question was how to prove that we might fulfil the commands of God and the Church in doing outwardly that which they command though we intended it not and here where he is in hand to make it appear that to sin and to make a man guilty of the transgression of the commandments of God and the Church it is not sufficient to violate them indeed if he have not an intention and design for it it was necessary for him to speak in an other manner quite opposite to the first A contradiction so formal and manifest in a subject so important to Faith and Religion as well as to manners will hardly find shelter under the vail and pretence of a good intention how specious soever it may be and it is certain that at the bottom it could not proceed from any but the Father of lyes and errours in favour of which he seems to have undertaken to speak as well as of the libertines and profane For he and his Fraternity who are in the same opinion with him maintain that we may accomplish the commands of God and the Church without any inward will and his opinion is that we cannot fulfil those of the Devil in violating the commandments of God and the Church if we have not a design in our hearts thereto So that the Devil must be served more sincerely then God and the Church and he hath more power and more right upon the inward actions and hearts of men then God and the Church have For he pretends with other Divines of the Society that the Church hath no power over the inward motions of our souls and that the commands of God are not extended so far as them and comprize not the intention nor manner in which God wills they should be fulfilled and executed But if he who propounds these heretical propositions and publiquely perpetrates these heretical actions ought not to passe for an Heretique because he believes not that he saith and doth amongst the Heretiques neither ought he be accounted a Catholick because he makes not profession of that he believes internally amongst the Catholicks but rather makes a contrary profession He is therefore to speak properly neither Catholick nor Heretick But he is worse then an Heretick He is a time-server a man of no Religion who derides both Hereticks and Catholicks complying with both for the better mannaging his affairs as Bauny speaks and taking up Religion onely as a matter of merryment See here the motives and the good intentions whereby he excuses their crime who maintain Heretical propositions or receive the Supper with the Hugenots without having their hearts ingaged thereto Emanuel Sa makes use of the same pretence of the intention to excuse an Oath c Juramenta non sunt in mea censcientia in fide Christiani nisi quis intendat jurare Quia juramentum pendet ab intentione jurantis Sa verbo juramentum n. 1. p. 295. It is no Oath saith he to say by my faith in my conscience on the faith of a Christian if we have not an intention to swear His reason is because an oath depends on the intention of him that swears They may as well say that a lye depends on the intention of him that lyes And that is very nigh thereto which Filliutius saith speaking of a man that lyes in using equivocation without any necessity obliging him thereto and who swears to confirm his equivocation For notwithstanding their opinion who hold that this man is to be accounted both a lyer and perjurer as he confesseth he concludes for the contrary opinion and saith d Dico 2 prâ—babilius videri in rigore non esse mendacium neque perj trium Ratio praecipua quia qui sic loquitur jural non habet intentionem dicendi falsum vel jurandifalsitatem Filliutius 10. 2 tr 25. c. 11. n. 331. p. 205. That it seems to him more propable that in rigour it is neither lye nor perjury His principal reason is the same with that of Sa because he that speaks and swears in this sort hath no intent to speak nor swear falsely though he doth both in effect and doth it without necessity and without reason as he saith expressely absque rationabili causa This maxime is very proper to license the lyes and oaths which Merchants do make use of ordinarily to deceive others and those who forswear themselves before Judges and I see not for what else it can be good but to nourish and justifie these crimes and tr acheries That which Emanuel Sa and Filliutius say of an oath Bauny affirms of blasphemy having recourse to the intention of the blasphemer to excuse his crime In his Summe c. 5. pag. 66. where he speaks of five sorts of blasphemies and he saith that the fifth sort of blasphemy is when one names with contumely reproach and dishonor the most venerable members of the Son of God Which yet they seem not to do who use them in their common discourse as some ornament of their language saying Death Head Belly and yet are nevertheless guilty Bonacina upon the first commandment d. 3. q. 8. p. 2. n. 2. It seems at first sight that he dares not justifie these blasphemers considering the horrour of their crimes but he afterwards makes use of their intention to excuse them adding in the sequel Nevertheless some whom this Author alledges in this dispute hold that to call upon these parts of Christs body in choler and not with rage against God is no blasphemy And two pages after he proposes this opinion to Confessors that they may follow it in their practice and that they may know how to deal with them that accuse themselves of blasphemy The Confessor saith he ought to inform himself of the penitent who accuses himself of blasphemy whether he did it with a
Deiparae in which there will be found very little if all that be thrown out which he hath invented himself It had need to be copied out in a manner whole and entire to make appear all the ridiculous and extravagant things that it contains and all the excesses and errours into which he is fallen pursuing his own thoughts and imaginations having not taken so much care to given the Verigin true praises as to produce new and extraordinary which even in this do dishonour her and cannot be pleasing to her Because the praises which are to be given to Saints as well as the honour which we are to render unto God himself ought not to be founded on any thing but truth I will onely rehearse some of the most considerable places of this Author He maintains confidently that Saint Anne and Saint Joachim were sanctified from the wombs of their Mothers and that there is more reason to attribute to them this priviledge then to Jeremy and Saint John Baptist He confesses d Nullus est proâ—me in asseâ—tione hac sed neque contra me cum non sit hacterus disputata Peza in Eâ—ucidarioâ— 2. tr 8. c. 3. p. 547. that there are no persons that are for him or against him in this proposition because none have spoken of it before himself If there be no Author for him they are all against him and the silence of the Saints and all the Doctors that were before him is a manifest condemnation of his presumption and of his rashness in so declaring himself an innovator in an unheard of novelty in the Church in a matter of Religion Molina hath done the same thing where he hath gloried to have invented the middle knowledge in the matter of Grace and of Predestination with such insolence that he is not affraid to say that if it had been known in the first ages of the Church the heresie of the Pelagians possibly had never risen Maldonat who is one of the Commentators on Scripture whom they esteem doth often declare himself the Author of new sences which he gives the Word of God against the consent even of the Fathers many times in his books we meet such expressions as these e 〈◊〉 habere Antorem qui na sâ—ntret ..... â—ames qur quot ligisse me memini â—…oâ—…s sic explicâ—nt ego autem alâ—…er sentio Malden I would find some Author who was of this opinion or all Authors whom I remember to have read expound this text in this manner but I expound it otherwise Which is a manifest contempt of the Council of Trent which forbids to expound Scripture against the consent of the Fathers and an imitation of the language of Calvin and other Hereticks renouncing the tradition of the Holy Fathers and all the antiquity of the Church If Escobar could have condemned this confidence of his Fraternity he would have condemned them onely of venial sin f Novas opinio nes novas vestes exponere vâ—nialis tantùm culpâ— est Escob â—r 2. exam 2. n. 10. p. 291. Qaia ejusmodi inventione quis gestit aliorum laudem captare Ibid. To introduce saith he rovel opinions and new sorts of habits into the Church is onely a venial sin He hath cause to talk of new opinions as of new fashions of Garments for in the new Divinity of the Jesuits who hold all things probable there needs no more reason to quit an ancient opinion then to change the fashion of apparel and if there be any ill in it it is very small and that too must come from some peculiar circumstance as from vanity or ambition Though this censure of Escobar be very gentle Molina and Maldonat as more ancient and more considerable in the Society then he will not submit thereunto and Poza is so far from acknowledging that there is any ill in inventing new opinions that he had a design in his Book not to produce therein any other then the inventions and imaginations of his own mind and for this reason in the entrance and preface he makes an Apology for novelty in which he hath forgotten nothing that he believed might be of use to make it recommendable and to give it admission as well into the Church as into the World imploying for this purpose authority examples and reasons He rehearses many passages out of Seneca saying g Patet omaibus veritas noadum est occupata qui â—nâ—e nos fueruut non domini sed duces fuerunt multum ex illa futuris relictum est Seneca Ep. 33. Dum unusquisque mavult credere quam judicare numquam de vita judicatur semper creditur that truth is open exposed to all the World that none have yet taken possession thereof that they who were before us were our guides but we are not therefore their slaves that there remains yet enough for those who come after us that every one liking better to believe then judge they are always content to believe and never judge at all how they ought to live And a little after h Non alligo me ad aliquem ex Stoicis proceribus est mihi censendi jus Itaque aliquem jubebo sententiam dividere de beata vita I addict not my self to any one in particular of these great Stoical Philosophers I have a right to judge them and to give my advice upon them This is the cause why some times I follow the opinion of one and sometimes I change something in the judgement of another It is clear that these passages go to establish a right for reason above authority which had been tolerable in an Heathen who had no other guide but Reason and who speaks of questions and things which cannot be regulated but by Reason But a Christian a Monk a man who interposes himself to write in the Church in matters of Faith for the instruction and edification of the faithful to make use of the maximes and terms of a Pagan to ruine the obedience of Faith and the tradition which is one of its principal foundations staving off the Faithful from the submission which they owe to the Word of God and the authority of the Holy Fathers is a thing unsufferable in the Church of God this is almost to turn it Pagan and to give every one a liberty to opine in matters of Religion as the Heathen Philosophers did in matters of science and morality wherein they followed their senses onely and proper thoughts He alledges also some passages of Catholick Authors as that same of Tertullian i Dominus noster Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem nominavit Tertull. Our Lord Jesus Christ said that he was the truth and not the custom And this other of Lactantius k Sapicntiam sibi adimuut qui sine ullo judicio invent a majorum probant ab aliis pecudum more ducuntur Sed hoc cos fallit quod majorum nomine posite non putant fieri posse ut ipsi plus
who are the first modules to all them that followed in that rule had no other then an humane conduct in instituting and establishing of themselves that which seemed unto them just and reasonable not as instruments animated by Jesus Christ but as the Authors and principals thereof following their own sences and thoughts The Jesuits perhaps will not be much troubled to agree to all those thing which are common enough in their Society and maintained by their most famous Writers who teach that the Laws of the Church are no other then humane that its power and conduct extends onely to the outward man and that the Church it self is onely a politick body as shall be proved elsewhere when we come to make known how pernicious these maximes are to all Religion and overturn the power and authority of the Church After Azor had spoken so basely and so unworthily of the Apostles and Apostolical constitutions we need not think that strange which he saith against the Ancients and Fathers of the Church and would have the opinions of the new writers of these times to have as much weight and credit as they so that if the Fathers sometimes prevail with them against the new Authors the new Authors do as often and more frequently prevail over the Fathers It is in the second Book of his Moral Institutions where after he had demanded q Prime quaeritur an opinio probabilior existimetur ita ut morito praeserri debeat co quod sit antiquorum sententia altera sit recentiorum whether we ought to hold an opinion more probable because it is from the ancient Fathers or Whether for this reason it ought to be preferred before that of the moderns He answers in these terms r Respondâ—o quondâ— revera opiniones sunt pares saepe antiquorum opinio juniorum sententiae praefeatur non tamen lege aut ratione efficaci compellimur ad cam semper anteferendam Inst Moral l. 2. c. 17. q. 1. p. 127. when the opinions are equal themselves those of the ancients are commonly preferred before new writers but there is neither law nor reason sufficient to oblige us to preferre them always This is no great honour to the Fathers to say that we may preferre their opinions before those of modern Authors when the reasons appear equal on both sides since as much may be said of all sorts of Writers following the Jesuits rule of probability But the contempt is more manifest in that which he adds that even in this case there is no obligation to subject our judgements to the opinions of the Holy Doctors of the Church who in important affairs say nothing but what they learned of it and that every one hath liberty to follow them or not to follow them so it shall be lawful to follow the moderns always and never to follow the Fathers when the reasons of the moderns are as likely as those of the Fathers which will easily appear so to those who judge by humane sense and natural reason rather then by the light of Faith as the Casuists of these times and the people of the world commonly do It will also be lawful to preferre the moderns before the Ancients even when the ancients are grounded on more strong and solid reasons according to that maxime of the Jesuits who say that we may prefer an opinion which is lesse before another which is more probable For this is an infallible consequence of this maxime joyned to that other which will have the Fathers and their opinions considered no otherwise then by reason and conformity to humane sense as the Parliament of Paris considers the Laws and opinions of the ancient Roman Lawyers or rather as the hereticks consider the holy Fathers to whom even they render a little more honour and respect in appearance saying that they are to be judged not by reason as all these new Doctors but by the Scriptures though they regard not Scripture but according to their reason and the preoccupation of their spirits But they both agree in the over throw they give the authority of the Fathers subjecting them to their reason and their fancy and giving them onely as much force as they please following the custom of all those who impugn the truths and most assured and inviolable rules of antiquity and Religion Reginaldus handling the same question whether the ancients or the moderns are rather to be believed when they are found in contrary opinions He distinguishes upon the Point saying that Å¿ Quae cirta sidem emergunt difficultates eae funt à veteribus bauriendae quoe vere circa mores homine Christiano dignâ—s à novitiis scriptoribus Reginald praefat ad Lect. in resolving difficulties that arise about faith the right thereof is to be drawn from the ancients but those which regard manners and the life of Christians are to be taken from the modern writers It is ordinary with those who have no right to a thing for which they contest unjustly to endeavour to have it divided to the end that they may have at least one half when they cannot carry all for themselves It was by this rule that Solomon knew that of the two women who disputed in his presence in the case of the Infant either pretending that it belonged to her that she who would have had it cut asunder in the middle ought to have none of it and was not the true Mother So the Jesuits cannot better testifie that they are deprived of truth then by their consenting to divide it in such manner that one half should be to the ancients and the other half to the moderns that is themselves But if it belong to the ancients to determine on questions which arise about matters of Faith it must needs be that they also decide difficult matters of conscience and manners since the faithful ought to live by Faith and if we ought to take from the moderns the rules of manners and not of faith we must have another rule of life given us then faith if faith be not the source and measure of good works nor the principle of Christian life Celot undertaking to defend the Casuists of his company testifies that Reginaldus hath done as he said and having taught moral Divinity twenty years he always made profession to follow the opinions of the newest Authors quidem recentiorum Which he approves and confirms relating that very passage of the Author which we have just now cited in the same terms as we have produced them Celot l. 8. c. 16. p. 714. Quia quae circa fidem emergunt difficultates sunt a veteribus hauriendae quae vero circa mores homine Christiano dignos a novitiis Scriptoribus Which shews that this wicked DOctrine is not peculiar to one or two but comes from the genius of the Society In whose name this Author wrote who seemeth desirous to separate us from the ancients and to hinder us from acknowledging them for
it if you will have me expresse it so In the third place he holds that it is probable that the Church of Rome expounds the Scripture well This is no Lutheran that saith this it is a disciple of the Jesuits that talks thus for him that expounds and builds his opinions on the principles of the probability 1. It is probable saith he that God cannot lye It is probable that he hath revealed the Scripture and that the Church interprets it well That is to say that these Articles are no more points of Faith or that Divine Faith as well as humane is a simple probability and that these points and these propositions are in such manner probable that the contrary ceases not to be also probable He dares not say this himself though it follow evidently from his reasoning and his principles but he makes it to be said by this Lutheran h Et tamen addit iis non obstantibus haruâ—s antitheses esse probabiles Ibid. He adds saith he that notwithstanding all these reasons the contrary ceases not to be also probable That is to say that as it is probable that the Church interpreteth Well the Scriptures it is also probable that it doth not interpret them well that as it is probable that God hath indited the Scriptures it is also probable that he hath not indited them that as it is probable that God cannot lye so it is also probable that he may lye and deceive men It is true that this Author is not so bold as to maintain openly that these Antitheses are probable on the one side as on the other Harum Antitheses esse probabiles This is not the language of a Lutheran neither For at least he will not say that God can lye Yet he omits not for all that to make him say it not because it is the opinion of Luther but because it is a consequence of the Doctrine of probability which the Jesuits teach which he lends this Lutheran to maintain his heresie and he makes him say it without any testimony that he condemns the impiety of these words On the contrary he furnisheth him with reasons to support it making him speak in these words i Resolutionem hanc sic ille confirmat dilucidat Doctrina Aristotelis inquit prout nunc traditur in Academi is Italicis Haspanicis Gallicis probabilissima est nec contra hanc ipsam prohabilitatem militat mundi aeternitas anima rationalis mortalitas Nam ifti similes errores sunt expuncti nec jam traduntur à Christianis Philosophis Haec ipsa doctrina schola Aristotelis in tres sectas dividitur Thomisticam Scotislicam Nominalem omnes probabiles omnes celebres omnes plausibiles Dicant Dominicani Nostra Schola Aristotelica est antiquior Nominali Scotistica ergo redeundum ad ipsam vel secedendum ab Aristotele Quid inde Nam à Franciscanis ridebuntur qui aeque jure reponent vel admittendam esse Scotischolam vel relinquendum Peripateticum Ibid. The Doctrine of Aristotle which as it is now taught in the Universities of Italy Spain France is very probable and it cannot be objected that Aristotle held that the world was eternal and that the reasonable soul is mortal because these errours and others such like are at this day bannished out of this Philosophy since it hath been taught by Christians This same Doctrine and the School of Aristotle is devided into three Sects which are that of the Thomists that of the Scotists and that of the Nominals These are all three probable all three famous all three maintainable If the Dominicans would say that the School of Aristotle which is in their Order is more ancient then that of the Scotists and Nominals and therefore that we must follow them or forsake Aristotle what should they gain thereby For the Franciscans would deride them and believe hey had also as good reason to say that they ought to follow the School of Scotus or seperate themselves from the Peripateticks And making application of these examples to the matter he hath in hand comparing the Dominicans in the pretension they have against the Scotists and the Nominals to teach the true Doctrine of Aristotle with the Catholicks who maintain against the Lutherans and Calvinists that they alone follow the true Doctrine of Jesus Christ and are in the Church which he hath instituted he prosecutes it in these terms k Tunc argumentatio urgeret cum una sub Christo Religio vel una sub Aristotele schola demonstrationes produceret Nam si una secta demonstraretur esse vera reliquae demonstrarentur esse falsae in nostro casu ait Barsanomeus omnes has religiones Romanam Lutherianam Calvinianam esse Christianas probabiles judico omnes hac scholas Thomisticam Scotisticam Nominalem esse Aristotelicas probabiles censeo hanc ob rem ratiocinio illo disjunctivo vel redeundum est ad Romanam Ecclesiam vel secedendum à Christo convinei aut urgeri non possunt Ibid. This form of arguing were very strong and cogent if there were but one Religion under the name of Jesus Christ or one School under the name of Aristotle which could prove it self clearly to be the true one For if it were demonstrated that one Sect were that true one it would appear by the same means that the other were false But in our case the Lutheran saith that he holds that the Roman Lutheran and Calvinian Religion are all Christian and probable even as he believes that the Schools of the Thomists Scotists and Nominals are all Aristotelian and probable and that therefore he cannot be convinced or pressed by this dilemma that he ought either to come back to the Roman Church or depart from Jesus Christ And because this defender of Lutheranisme by the rules of probability knew that antiquity is a strong foundation of Religion and a puissant proof to shew that it is true he prevents and eludes this reason saying for the Lutheran l Nec antiquitatem ipse Concilia generalia morabitur Haec enim ut ait probabilia argumenta non evidentia ministrant Queniam schola Aristotelica Christi religione multo antiquior scholae Peripateticae multo numerosiores magistros habent quam generalia Concilia Ibid. that he troubles not himself about antiquity nor the general Councils because evident arguments cannot be drawn from them but onely probable ones since the School of Aristotle is more ancient then the Religion of Jesus Christ and the Academies of the Peripateticks had a greater number of Masters and Doctors then general Councils And he makes all this to be spoken by a Lutheran but in the progresse of his discourse he becomes his advocate himself and speaks thus openly in favour of him m Et si licet Patri Magno doctrinam Peripateticorum de errore tyrannide arguere cur non licebit Barsanomeo esse
cautiori It is lawfull for Father Valerian de Magnis the Capouchin to accuse the Doctrine of the Peripateticks of errour and Tyranny why is it not lawful for a Lutheran to take care of himself for fear of being deceived by retiring to the Roman Church and least instead of truth he find there errour as well as in other Sects n Cur non licebit dicere Romanam quidem Ecclesiam probabilissimam at que adeo in foro interno esse securissimam Et tamen hoc ipso non obstante Lutheranam quam ipse profitetur esse etiam probabilem atque aeque Christianam securam Imo securiorem omnino quoniam minus probabilis sententia si bâ—niguior etiam securior est Cur non licebit addere se esse in quieta conscientia apud Lutherum adeoque nec teneri redire ad Romanam Ecclesiam nec à Christi religione secedere Ibid. Wherefore may he not say the Church of Rome is as to truth very probable and for conscience very safe But this hinders not but that the Lutheran Doctrine which he professeth may be also probable Christian and safe and even more safe since an opinion less probable is more safe when it is more pleasant Wherefore may he not also say that he is in repose of conscience amongst the Lutherans and by consequence he is not obliged to return to the Roman Church or to forsake the Religion of Jesus Christ. It is not the Lutheran that talks thus but the disciple of the Jesuits who speaks for him and furnisheth him with answers whereby he believes that he may defend himself against those that presse him to forsake his Lutheranisme and with reasons wherewith to comfort himself according to the design of this whole discourse and to assure his conscience in his Religion because it is probable because therein he finds repose because being born therein and having been brought up and instructed therein from his childhood he hath continued therein and lived in it in simplicity with intention to serve God and save himself which are so many principles of the Jesuits Divinity one that he acts prudently and with a safe conscience in following a probable opinion the other that a pretended good intention covers all sorts of crimes and the third that to do evil it is necessary to know that evil is done and to have a will to do it so that when we think to do well as this Lutheran doth and that following conscience though erroneous we accustom our selves to evil so long till we loose all sense and cognisance thereof and therein find our repose we may according to this new Doctrine continue in this estate without fearing any thing And as if this Author kept intelligence with this Lutheran or as if he were convinced by the strength of his reasons and could not make answer unto him he concludes in this manner o Sic discurrit etiam nunc Barsanomeus debet à te lector erudite compesci Patrem Valerianum Magnum audivit alios audire desideras Ibid. It is thus that this Lutheran also argues at this day and it were well that some one of them that read this would undertake to refute him He hath already heard Father Valerian the Capouchin and he desires to hear others It is his duty who hath done the hurt to apply the remedy it is their duty who have put arms into the hands of the enemies of the Church to fight with her and to nourish themselves in rebellion against it to take them from them and to break them asunder in their hands but this man testifies either his malice in declaring that he will not do it or his weakness in affirming that he cannot and in discharging himself upon others deberet à te lector erudite compesci He doth not condemn even that which he makes the Lutheran himself say he complains not that he makes evil use of his Doctrine and of the Jesuits about probable opinions or that he interprets or applyes it ill He doth not onely not answer his reasons but he makes them avail as much as he can He enlarges them he expounds them he adds his own to them if they be not all his and though he dare not approve them directly and possitively declaring that all he saith is true he doth it yet indirectly inquiring why he may not so speak And leaving the question so without answer he testifies that he hath no true one and that he agrees that a Lutheran may in this manner defend himself against them that presse him to leave his Lutheranisme and return to the Church of Rome Also before he entred into this discourse he said plainly that he did it onely to this purpose to comfort the Germans and other honest people infected with heresie He pretends then to comfort them by the discourse of this Lutheran and he avouches that in the matter of Religion and Salvation there can be no consolation but in repose of conscience and in the perswasion of being united to the true Church and in an estate of Salvation making this Lutheran say that he is inrepose of conscience amongst the Lutherans se esse in quieta conscientia apud Lutherum and that a Lutheran Church is a probable Christian and safe Church Lutheranam Ecclesiam esse probabilem Christianam securam And so he testifies openly that one may be saved out of the Roman Church amongst Lutherans and Calvinists These are the consequences and fruits of the Doctrine which makes all things probable SECT III. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability destroys the Commands of God and the Church and teaches to clude all Laws Divine and Humane even that which forbids to do unto others that which we would not have done unto our selves IT is easie to prove this by reason and to make it apparent by evident and necessary consequences that it is a sequel of this Doctrine But it seems more to my purpose to shew it by the proper words and examples of the Masters and defenders of this very Doctrine Caramuel proposes this case a Proponi alterum casum Petrus die Sabbati sub mediam noctem ut primum audivit duodecimam comedit carnes postquam satur excessit è mensa audivit aliud horologium significans duodecimam Die sequenti communicare vult sic discurrit Horologia habent opinionum probabilium virtutem at ego comederam antequam tale horologium sonuerit ergo probabile est quod sum jejunus At opinioni probabili conformare conscientiam possum Ergo potere communicare Caram Theol. â—und p. 139. A man hears the clock strike twelve on Saturday at midnight and presently thereupon he eates flesh Rising from table after he hath filled himself with meat he hears another clock strike twelve also The day following being desirous to communicate he reasons thus Clocks are as it were probable opinions I have eaten before this clock struck It is therefore probable that I did eat
and that of Sanchez being well managed with that of Sancius may discharge of the whole in many occurrences There is also another more commodious and more easie which gives liberty to cut off therefrom what we please or to say or not say it at all absolutely if we please The foundation of this opinion is that the Church can neither command nor forbid condemn nor punish that whereof it cannot take cognisance Upon this principle Caramonel reasoneth in this manner h Lectio horarum occulta vel etiam omissio ejusdem lectionis occulta per accidens est incognoscibilis Superior enim qui externos subditorum actus vere occultos secretos cognosceret jam non esset homo sed Angelus Ergo per accidens est dijudicabilis Ergo per accidens est impraeceptibilis Ergo per accidens accidit Superiori quod non possit interdicere actiones aut omissiones secretas occultas per accidens Ibid. p. 205. Albeit that the action of him who saith his Breviary in secret or who faileth thereof in secret may be known by himself yet it cannot be known by any other man a Superiour must be an Angel and not a man to know all the secret actions or omissions of this subject Then this action in the same manner is incapable of being judged and if so of being punished and then also of being commanded And by consequence it is thus true that Superiours cannot forbid secret actions or omissions There is nothing required but to be secret and crafty enough to hide himself from men so that they know not whether he say his Breviary or no without thinking of God who sees all nor of the command of the Church who appoints the Office to be said every day nor by consequence of the penalties ordained against them that neglect it See how these Doctors teach to obey the Church and to keep its commands and they believe yet after all this to have done it great service and given it cause of being well contented with them i Cum Ecclesia ferat suas leges ita à gravibus Doctoribus explicari hoc ipso quod eorum explicationes permittit publice imprimi doceri censetur suum praeceptum secundum eas confiderare Mascarenhas tract 5. n. 491. The Church knowing well saith Mascarenhas that considerable Doctors do expound the Laws in this manner and permit these Explications to be taught publickly and printed it seems that she approves them and fits her Laws to them This is without doubt to explicate the Laws of the Church clearly and to leave no difficulty therein but it is to destroy the spirit of it and to preserve only an appearance thereof so that they neither say or demand any thing but what the particular persons would have By which it may be judged what esteem Jesuits have for Civil Laws and Laws of Princes there being no appearance that they will give more honour to them than to those of God and the Church For this cause all they say of the one may easily be applyed to the others and they must hold of necessity that they may all equally be contemned with a good conscience I will rehearse only two of their maxims which contain almost all that can be said on this subject 1. k Peccant non peceant subditi sine causa non recipientes legem à Principe legitime promulgatam Escobar Theol. Moral tom 1. l. 5. sect 2. c. 14. probl 13. p. 160. It may be said according to Escobar that the Subjects of a Prince who refuse to receive without just cause the just Laws which he hath caused to be legally published do sin and it may be said also that they sin not at all He speaketh of a lawfull Prince and he supposeth that the Law which he causes to be published is just and that his Subjects have no cause to complain thereof and yet he pretends that they have liberty to obey or not In pursuance hereof he alleadges Authors and Reasons which they produce on each side to make both the opinions probable and to give liberty to follow whether we please And it is apparent that if any demanded his advice he would counsel them to follow the more easie and more profitable after the rules of his Divinity that is to say that he would incite Subjects to disobey their Prince 2. This permission to despise the Laws of Princes is general for all sorts of persons but it gives also a particular license to Ecclesiasticks saying l Clerici non solum vi directiva sed vi coactiva subjiciuntur non subjiciuntur Principum secutarium legibus quae spectant ad Reipublicae gubernationem nec cum Clericorum pugnant statu Ibid. c. 15. probl 19. p. 162. It may be said that Ecclesiasticks are Subjects and that also they are not Subjects of necessity and obligation but only out of respect and good example towards Princes Laws which regard the Government of their Estates and which derogate not from the Ecclesiastick State The question is then problematical there being Reasons and Authors on both sides and though there were none it is enough that Escobar holds each of these opinions to render them both probable But as the principles and resolves of this Science are almost all favourable to looseness and disorder he concludes with some discourses that m Infero Clericos secluso scandalo non peccare mortaliter Principum secularium leges viâ—lando quia legibus hisce directe non tenentur Ibid. excepting in the case of scandal the Ecclesiasticks sin not mortally in violating the Laws of secular Princes because they are not directly Subjects He excepts no kind of Laws since he speaks of those which are just and derogate not from the Rights of the Church not allowing the Ecclesiasticks to be therein Subjects no more than the Princes themselves that make them This is without doubt to make themselves conformable to the example of Jesus Christ and the words which he spake unto Pilate Joan. 19. v. 11. Non haberes potestatem adversum me ullam nisi tibi datum esset desuper c. Thou wouldst have no power against me if it were not given thee from above and to the conduct of the Saints who believed they should have disobeyed God himself if they had disobeyed Princes who commanded them nothing against the honour of God and the Church It were easie to relate an infinite of like resolutions which the Jesuits give in all sorts of questions which respect Manners and Religion to make it appear by sensible examples that by their Rules of Probability they confound all things in the World in Divinity and almost generally in the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church But besides that this truth is found sufficiently proved in this Extract which contains but one part of their corrupted maxims Tambourin will dispence with me for this labour having publickly acknowledged that which I say
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
some good or to remove some evil which we observe that we cannot acquire or avoid without the help of God that thence it follows that he who prays not to God in a temptation against chastity sins only against chastity because he sins not in omitting prayer but because of the danger he is in to violate chastity He thinks not that we are at any time directly obliged to pray unto God any more then to love him to believe on him to hope in him but indirectly by adventure and as it were by accident That is to say that according to him God hath not commanded us Prayer Faith Hope and Charity for their own sakes but only to help us in the exercise of some other vertue or to surmount some temptation when they are absolutely necessary thereunto as a good Physitian appoints not purging bleeding and other remedies for themselves but only when they are necessary against the diseases and incommodities which we cannot be freed from but by their assistance So that Faith Hope Charity and Prayer according to this Divinity have no more part in the conduct of a Christian life than purgation and blood-letting in the conservation of the natural life and health and that as a Physitian who hath prescribed a Purge obligeth not the Patient to love it nor to take it for its own sake but simply to take it for the need he hath of it in the same manner God commanding Prayer Faith Hope and Charity obligeth not Christians to love these vertues and to exercise them for their own sakes but only for necessity sake and as it were by force upon such occasions in which they cannot dispense with them without putting themselves in danger of losing life and Salvation by sinning against oâ—her vertues And as a man of a strong complexion who is not subject to be sick though he be subject to some slight infirmities may pass over his whole life without purgation or phlebotomy so a Christian who is of a good and moderate natural disposition and hath no violent passions and is not subject to strong temptations may pass his whole life without ever being obliged to pray unto God to love him to believe on him nor hope in him and yet he shall not for all that cease to be a good Christian according to this new Divinity nor to live well nor to go to Heaven and to deserve it by a good life The Proâ—het saith that the just man lives by Faith S. Paul that we are saved through Hope and S. John that he who loves not abides in death and that to obtain and preserve life and Salvation we ought to pray without ceasing And the Jesuits maintain on the contrary that we may live justly avoid death and obtain Salvation without loving God believing or hoping in him and without ever or rarely praying to him in all our life timâ— It suffices to relate these excesses barely which are unheard of in the Church and as it were Monsters of errour and impiety and neither Comparisons nor Expressions can be found capable to represent them neither can we call them otherwise than the universal overthrow of the whole Christian Religion fince they destroy Prayer Faith Hope and Charity which are its foundations support and perfection There is nothing which the simple light of Nature doth better make known unto all men than the attention they ought to have to whatsoever they say especially when they treat of important affairs and with persons eminent in dignity and merit but they redouble their respect and their attention when they beg any singular grace or favour from them and there is no prudent man who would not condemn him of extravagance and folly who should therein speak in any other manner and who would not judge that he merited not only to be refused but also to be punished for his rashness and insolence In the mean time the Jesuits hold that this carriage which appears so unsupportable towards men is good enough and sufficient towards God and that the prayers which he ordains to be made unto him may be without affection reverence attention and even with voluntary thoughts the most criminal that can be Which is yet so much the more strange because men may be deceived and not know the secret wandrings and irreverences of those who speak unto them but all is visible to God and he sees better the most secret dispositions of hearts than we see the outward motions of bodies and faces So that the insolencies which are committed inwardly before him are no less known unto him and are no less criminal than those which are externally committed before men Which yet hinders not the Jesuits to hold that prayers made without sense of piety without inward reverence and attention and even with a wandring spirit voluntarily distracted and wholly replenished with impure and prophane thoughts sufficeth to fulfil the obligation unto prayer Filliutius demands if 1 Quaero an quae attentioâ— sit necessaria ad praeceptum to accomplish the Law which commands us to pray unto God it be necessary to have attention and what kind of attention this ought to be Before he answers he advertises the Reader 2 Pro responsione notandum agere nos de hor is canonicis quando recitantur ex obligatione non autem de privata devotione Tunc enim non est major obligatio attendendi quà m in quacunque oratione vocali ad summum obligat sub veniali Filliut mor. qq tom 2. tr 23. cap. 8. n. 252. pag. 126. That he intends to speak only of Canonical hours which are recited upon obligation and not of prayers which are made by private devotion For in that case we are no more obliged to attend to what we say than to any other sort of vocal prayers and this obligation goes not farther than to venial sin That is to say that whatsoever distraction we may have in the prayers which we make upon devotion and not by particular Commandment it can be no more than a venial sin and for those which are rehearsed upon obligation as are those which Beneficiaries and Religious persons say in reciting their office this Author saith that there are two opinions the first which holds 3 Prima neminem teneri sub mortali ad attentionem internam modo integrè recitet externè Ibid. That none is obliged upon pain of mortal sin to an inward attention in saying his office provided he rehearse it outwardly and entirely And though he follows not this opinion absolutely yet he passes it for probable adding thereto in the process for his first Answer 4 Respondeo dico 1. primam sententiam probabilem esse Ibid. That according to his judgment this first opinion is probable But if it be probable then we must conclude according to the Jesuits that it may be followed with a good conscience and it will become also more probable by the approbation which
this Author bestows on it Escobar expounds himself yet more upon this point 5 Scio vagari mente ex negligentia in officio veniale solum peccatum esse Rogo an si ex proposito id fiâ—t graviteâ— delinquam ad repetendum officium tenear Escobar tractat 5. exam 6. num 157. pag. 679. I know well saith he that it is only a venial sin through negligence to suffer ones self to fall into distractions during the office Now it is demanded whether it be a greater sin to indulge ones self therein voluntarily and whether he be obliged to say the office over again His Answer is 6 Azorium secutus assero peccare ex contempâ—u mortaliter satisfacere tamen Ecclesiae praecipienti nec teneri iterum recitare ut diximus supra That according to Azors opinion which is also his own it is a mortal sin when it is done through contempt but the command of the Church is nevertheless thereby fulfilled and we are not obliged to repeat the office as hath been said above So that whatever distraction there be in rehearsing the divine office though it be voluntary if it come of negligence and not of contempt it is but a venial sin and when it proceeds from a deliberate will and formal contempt though it be a mortal sin we fail not of satisfying the Church and discharging our duty that is to say that the Church may be contented by despising it and God satisfied by mortally offending him Coninck saith in a manner the same thing speaking of the Mass and the manner it ought to be heard 7 Si absit scandalum aut contempeus distractio ex hac parte non est peccatum mortale etiamsi exterius appareat Coninck 3. parte q. 83. art 6. n. 247. pag. 286. If there be no scandal nor contempt saith he distraction is not of it self a mortal sin though it appear outwardly And a little after he discovers the principle of this conclusion saying 8 Non est necessarium ut quis satissaciat praecepto Ecclesiae ut habeat internam aliquam devotionem Ibid. n. 301. That to satisfie the Commandment of the Church it is not necessary to have any inward devotion Whence he draws this other conclusion more express than the former 9 Hinc sequitur eum qui etiam voluntarie est toto tempore Sacri distractus modo sufficienter sibi prae ens sit ut Sacro cum externa reverentia debitè assistat satisfacere praecepto Ecclesiae Ibid. num 302. Hence it follows that he who is even voluntarily distracted during the whole time of the Mass satisfies the Precept of the Church provided he have such presence of mind as sufficeth him to assist at the Mass with some outward respect as he ought And because he perceived that it might be replyed against him that there was no apparent ground to believe that we might satisfie the Church by offending God or that instead of a religious action which it commands when it ordains Mass to be heard or the divine office to be recited it would accept of a crime and that also such a crime as is an irreverence and kind of contempt of Religion he prevents this objection and saith 1 0 Nec resert quod actus externus sine interno non potest hebere rationem verae virtutis cum possit fieri obâ—… malum sinem quia possumus praeceptis Ecclesiae satisfacere per actum qui non sit vera virtus imo qui sit peccatum Ibid. That though the exterior act without the interior be not a true action of vertue and may have reference unto some wicked end this matters not because the Commandments of the Church may be satisfied by an action which is no act of true vertue but which is in it self a sin But if this Answer content not and it augment the difficulty instead of resolving it he adds not to clear up this difficulty but to shew how firm and setled he is in this opinion 1 Respondeo actum externum orationis quoad externas circumstantias debitè sactum esse verè actum externum virtutis religionis Ibid. That the outward act of prayer which is done with the outward circumstances which it ought to have is a true exterious action of the vertue of Religion though it be done with voluntary distraction and which is it self a sin imo qui sit peccatum According to this Maxime if Herod had secretly killed Jesus Christ whilst he adored him as he contrived his design when he learnt of the Wise-men that he was born and if he had observed all the Forms and all the outward Ceremonies of adoration at the same time giving only some signal unto his people to murder this Infant as Judas saluting and kissing the same Jesus Christ with outward respect and ordinary testimonies of affection which he ought him marked him out to the Souldiers who were come to take him this Jesuit might have said of this Tyrant killing Jesus Christ in the very act of adoration and of Judas betraying him by a kiss that which he saith of Ecclesiasticks and Christians offending God mortally in prayer 2 Respondeo actum externum adorationis orationis salutationis quoad externas circumstantias debitè factum esse verè actum externum virtutis religionis That the act of adoration and salutation as well as that of prayer which is done with all the outward circumstances which ought to be had is a true outward action of Religion And because such a religious action was never heard of before and that it is a difficult thing even so much as to conceive this sort of adoration he expounds it by an example quite contrary 3 Sicut adoratio externa in Idolo facta est verè actus externus idolatriae etsi illum exercens interius non intendat adorare Idolum Ibid. n. 296. 3 Bauny in his Sum Chap. 13. pag. 176. Altogether the same saith he with the outward adoration which is rendered to an idol and as it is a true and outward act of adoration and of Idolatry though he who makes this adoration outwardly hath no intention to adore the Idol so he who prays unto God or who adores him outwardly without intention to pray or adore but rather on the contrary with an intention to dishonour and offend imo qui fit cum peccato doth exercise according to this Jesuit a true outward action of prayer and adoration appertaining to the vertue of Religion It might seem at first sight that this is the utmost point of disorder whereunto it were possible to fall in this matter but Father Bauny descends yet lower He demands if the Chanons fulfil their duty and earn their dividends who being assistants in the Quire during holy Service pass their time in scandalous discourse and in employment altogether vicious as in laughing scoffing c. That is in doing and saying other things which we
which he places these 1 Datur non datur recipiendae Consiâ—mationis praeceptum divinum Whether there be a Divine Precept to receive Confirmation where having reported the two contrary Opinions he tells his own in these terms 2 Existimo nullum dari nec divinum nec Ecclesiasticum praeceptum Confirmationis recipiendae Escob tom 2. lib. 12. Pr 31. I believe there is no Precept neither Divine nor Ecclesiastick to receive Confirmation And as if it had not been sufficient to have said it once he repeats it the second time also confirming his errour After which he proposes this other Problem 3 Datur non datur ullum recipiendae confi mationis praeceptum Probl. 32. Whether it be a Venial sin to fail of receiving Confirmation He concludes that 4 Omittere Confirmationem peccatum vaniale est neque peccatum est veniale Probl. 33. Except in the case of scandal or contempt it is not of it self any scandal to omit it He contents not himself with this neither but that he might have occasion to repeat this scandalous Proposition he makes this other question 5 Sub veniall fideles tenentur nec sub veniali tenentur ante Sacramenti Eucharistiae matrimonil susceptionem Confirmationem recipere Probl. 34. Whether the faithful are obliged under the pain of Venial sin to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation before that of the Eucharist or of Marriage And he answers that they are not at all obliged In his other work wherein he hath collected the Opinions of the 24 Elders who represent the Society he demands 6 Quaenam suscipiendi obligatio Non est necessarium necessitate medil neque necessitate praecepti Escob tr 7. ex 3. n. 3. n. 11. p. 794. What Obligation have we to receive Confirmation and he answers that there is none that comes either from any Commandment or from any necessity of this Sacrament it self He generally takes away all sort of obligation and necessity from this Sacrament reducing it into the rank of things free and indifferent And to testifie this yet more he adds that one may without sin at least without any great one have a formal will not to receive it at all sponte omittere provided it be without scandal and contempt As if it were not enough to despise so great a gift of God as that of this Sacrament to refuse it voluntarily without cause There is no King nor Man of quality who would not hold it for a contempt to refuse in this manner any gift though much smaller especially if he offer it to some person of low condition who should shew so little regard of the honour he doth him Mascarenhas who wrote after the rest follows in this point the opinion of his Brethren and speaks also more clearly and resolutely then they supposing himself to be fortified by their Examples and supported by their Authority 7 Omittere hoc Sacramentum absolutè loquendo nec etiam pâ—ccatum veniale est Et ratio est quia nullum de hodatur praecepc tum de jure communâ— nullum datur peccatum nec veniale nisi siâ— contra aliquod praeceptum Mascarenhas tr 1. de Sacram. in genere disp 4. c. 5. p. 47. There is not absolutely saith he any sin no not a Venial one in neglecting to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation because amongst the common Laws of Christian Religion there is none that commands it and it cannot be any sin no not a Venial one which is not against some Commandment He acknowledgeth neither obligation nor precept nor any sort of necessity for receiving Confirmation which is hard to reconcile with the Faith we ought to have in this Divine Sacrament which contains so great an abundance of Grace and fulness of the Holy Ghost For if one should say that he might withdraw himself from it through honour and respect not esteeming himself worthy of so great a gift and bounty of God he would therein testifie at the least some esteem for this Sacrament of the Holy Ghost But to maintain that one may withdraw from it of his own will only and without any reason and without troubling himself about the Graces and Blessings which he might receive therefrom is to testifie manifestly that we make no great account of it and that we would reduce it to the rank of things indifferent And how can men be diverted from it more openly then by making them believe that they may overlook it and neglect even the occasions that are convenient for receiving it without making themselves guilty before God of the least sin But because this wicked Doctrine is entirely opposite to the consent of the Holy Fathers and Councils who acknowledge the necessity of Confirmation the Jesuits have found out a new invention to defeat their Authority herein They answer that the 8 Pontifices Concilin in contrarium adducta loquuntur de necessitate non praeceptl sed utilitatis Escobar supra n. 22. p. 796. Popes and Councils which are alledged against their Opinion speak not of a necessity of command but of a necessity of benefit There is no Commandment so express nor so clearly expressed neither in the Scripture nor in the Books of the Church which may not be cluded by this new unheard of and ridiculous Distinction For hitherto none ever spoke of a necessity of benefit it being clear that what is only beneficial as is Confirmation with the Jesuits is not necessary and that to joyn in this manner a necessity to utility or an utility to necessity is to form a kind of Monster composed of two contrary parts whereof the one destroys the other According to this distinction we may say that whatsoever is in the Church and in the Scripture is necessary because there is nothing there which is not profitable and all the most free Counsels themselves being profitable may be said to be necessary But to shew yet more clearly that this necessity of utility is but a vain word which they have invented to obscure the light of the Ancient Doctrine of the Church it is manifest that according to them it is impossible there should be any true necessity of any kind for the Sacrament of Confirmation since they hold that it is not commanded by any law of God or the Church and that the Grace which it confers may be obtained not only by other Sacraments but also by every sort of good works and exercises of Religion as appears by the Books of English Jesuits condemned by the Clergy of France and since publickly owned by the Jesuits in the Book of Alegambe approved by their General Escâ—bar also expounds his thought more openly demanding 1 Qui data copis recipiendi hec Sacramentum quam postea non facile est habiturus nen recipit deliquitne ut contemptor Minime Ib. n. 23. If he who hath convenience to receive this Sacrament which he cannot easily another time obtain
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
them as he saith by stroking and prayers must needs act by an extraordinary vertue and more than humane and as they are not Saints that so we might believe that they have the power of God in their hands it is visible that they employ that of the Devil It is also lawful according to this Father 4 Verba sacra pro latratu canum proque effluente sanguine pro morberum expulsione amota certa expectatione vanis si forte adsint ceremoniis sunt licita Ibid. num 80. sect 1. to make use of sacred words to keep dogs from barking to stanch bleeding and to heal diseases provided we attend on the event without firm confidence therein and cut off all vain Ceremonies if there be any This without doubt is a worthy use of the Word of God to employ it only to keep Curs from barking and this is without doubt to sanctifie the profession of Thieves to teach them to pray unto God when they are about to enter into a house to rob that by their prayers they may hinder the dogs from bawling and wakening the people To avoid Witchcraft in these prayers Tambourin requires two conditions The first that the event be not attended with certain confidence nor the effect of these prayers allowing it to be lawful to desire it and to attend on the power of the Devil as probable and to have a probable commerce with him and to hope that he will help us provided we be not wholly confident of it the Devil not performing always what he would no more than what he saith and what he promiseth The other condition is that the vain Ceremonies be cut off if there be any But the Devil regards not to employ vain and Pagan Ceremonies in Magick when it is more advantagious for him to use those of the Church 1. Because thereby he profanes the sacred signs of our Religion 2. Because thereby he hides his malice better and more easily surprises the simple by marks and appearances of piety But that none may scruple to consult Astrologers about what shall befal them Tambourin assures us 1 Video viros pletate dectrina non mediocres ab Astrologis sui natalis figuram suosque particulares futuros eventus non cum scrupulo exposcentes Ibid. n. 19. sect 1. That he hath seen men of extraordinary piety and learning make no scruple to demand from Astrologers the figures of their birth and productions of things which should happen unto them This alone suffices to render their vertue suspected and entirely to ruine it since this was to approve and authorize a profession condemned by the Scripture Church and to cherish worldly men in a profane curiosity which leads them to consult Diviners and judiciary Astrologers about things to come which depend on God alone and not on the vain observations of these Impostors Tambourin adds 2 Certe cum cui praedicitur modo dicto Praelatura non condemnarem saltem de mortali fi adire Romam velit ad aliquam sub aliqua spe non vero certitudine exspectandam Ibid. num 20. That he would not condemn him at least of mortal sin to whom an Astrologer having predicted that he should be advanced to some Prelacy if he resolved thereupon to go to Rome with some hope but not with entire certainty to obtain the dignity foretold him Without doubt this is a very Ecclesiastick mission and altogether divine to go to Rome to obtain a Prelacy being induced thereunto by a Diviner or an Astrologer that is to say by the illusion of a Spirit humane or diabolick which governs these Foretellers who having first deceived them doth by them deceive and blind others by their own ambition and folly There can be nothing more proper to authorize this pernicious Science and to give it free passage through the world than to say that it is capable of conducting Church-men in the greatest and holiest Charges of Religion But this is clearly enough to justifie and declare it innocent and lawful and to confirm those who profess it in their errour to maintain that the gain they get thereby is just and lawful as Saucius doth when he saith 3 Li nullam operam apposuit ut arte diaboli id sciret Astrologus quod nullo alio pacto sciri potuit sive affectus evenerit sive non tenetur pretium restituere danti Si vero Astrologus ille vel divinator operam suam apposuit arte diaboli res ita evenit non tenetur pretium restituere quia ipse suam operam etsi turpem apposult quia illa diligentia à mago illo apposita est pretio aestimabilis nee in hoc casu tenetur damna expensas consulenti restituere sed tantum quando nullans operam impendit aut ejus diabolicae artis ignerus est Saucim in Summa lib. 2. cap. 38. num 96. That if an Astrologer have not done what he could to know by the help of the Devil what he could not know otherwise whether the thing happened or happened not he is bound to restore the money be received but if he have done what he could to know of the Devil what would happen he is not bound to restore what he received because he hath taken pains for this money ..... For the pains care and industry of this Sorcerer hath its valuation and may be estimated by money and in this case he is not responsible for damages nor obliged to restitution of expences but he is then only obliged thereto when he is not well skilled in the diabolick Art He condemns him not then unto restitution but only for not being sufficiently employed in the study of this impious and horrible Science and for not having intelligence enough with the Devil This extravagance appears incredible but it is a just punishment on him for that he could imagine that it was just that those goods which the Lord hath made for them who adore him should serve for recompence to the Worshippers of the Devil and that they could get them justly by doing of all injuries the greatest unto him who is thereof the Soveraign Master ARTICLE II. THOU SHALT NOT SWEAR BY GOD IN VAIN That the Jesuits destroy this Commandment by diminishing excusing weakning the sins of Swearing and Blaspheming BAuny treating of Blasphemy in Chap. 6. of his Sum pag. 69. acknowledges that we see but too many people who by utmost infidelity renounce God but he adds also shortly after that the rashness of the tongue or mind in fits and sallies of choler which are the cause a man is not master of himself excuse from mortal sin this extream infidelity of those who renounce God and this same excuse may serve in a manner for all those who are transported to renounce or blaspheme God there being few who do it in cold blood He hath written also in the same Page That by a most pernicious abuse it is become a custom in
Church and Nature it self since it can prevail without incurring any penalty against the Laws of the one and the other And since the Laws of the Church are also the Holy Ghost's who by it hath given us them and who guides it in all it doth and ordains if custom carry it against the Laws of the Church as this Casuists pretends it must needs be according to him that it hath more power than the Holy Ghost and that the Authority it hath in their School is more to be considered than that of 〈◊〉 himself since he believes that we ought to yield to the abuses it hath introduced into the Church to the prejudice of the primitive Orders and Laws which the Holy Ghost hath established But if these things seem extraordinary and incredible in themselves and considered according to the Rules of Truth and natural Sense alone yet they are not so in the Maxims of these new Doctors For it is not in this case only but in occasions of all other sorts that the custom being sound opposed and contrary to the Laws of God and the Church it ordinarily gains the cause by their Judgment as hath been observed in many places of these Writings Escobar follows the same Rules with Layman to determine what labour is lawful or forbidden on Feast-days that is 1 Servile opus est ad quod servi deputati sunt Nec opus servile fit quia â—b lucrum est factum si de se servile ante non erat Escobar tract 7. exam 5. cap. 2. num 4. pag. 99. Servile work saith he which is for servants and slaves And he adds as Layman that if a work be not servile in it self it doth not become servile when it is done for gain He afterwards sets down in the number of actions which are not servile studying writing travelling dancing And although he affirm that hunting and painting are servile actions he forbears not to say afterwards 2 Pingere ex suo genere servile est Venatio si fist ex officio servile est ut pictura ob voluptatem recrcaâ—ionem minime Ibid. num 8. Mundare scopis tapetibus vestire parietes Ecclesiarum hujusmodi nisi aliqua intercedat excusatio saltem venislia sunt Ibid. n. 6. Num misericordiae opera exercenda De se servilia non licent ut consuere vestem pauperi deferre ligna eidem c. Ibid. num 7. That if hunting be followed upon obligation and of duty as when a Hunts-man or a servant hunts at the command of his Master it is servile as well as painting but that it is not so if it be pursued of pleasure and for pastime That is to say that a servant may not go on hunting in obedience to his Master when he sends him but the Master may go for his pleasure and the servant also and by consequence that obedience in labour profanes a Holy day but pleasure in the same work profanes it not Speaking in the same place of those who labour in cleansing hanging and trimming Churches on Feast-days he saith that they sin at the least venially if they have not some lawful cause He saith the same thing of the outward works of mercy which are exercised towards our neighbour as to mend the cloaths of the poor to carry them wood or other things whereof they have need these actions according to him are servile and forbidden on Feast-days He would have it lawful to paint and hunt for pleasure on Feast-days and he will not have it lawful to sweep hang and adorn the Church for the Service of God He would have us have power to walk dance travel and go whither we will for our pastime but he will not have it lawful to visit the poor and sick and to give them some assistance pretending that works of mercy are more contrary to the Sanctification of Feasts than the sports and pastimes of the world He will not have it lawful to carry alms themselves unto the poor on Feast-days as he saith expresly a little after For having put the Question if those who by a motive of piety do actions which are called servile sin against this Commandment of the Church he answers in these terms 3 Excuiandine aliqui ratione pietatis Aliqui liberant à reatu exercentes die Festo opera servilia ad templa aedificanda vel resicienda gratis ad â—lâ—emosynam gerendam ad ornanda delubra c. At ego cum illis sentio qui laborantes vel hoc praetextu sint necessitate non excusant There are some who exempt them from sin who busie themselves in servile works on Feast-days to build or re-edifie Churches gratis to carry alms to the poor to adorn Temples c. But as for me I am of the opinion of those who exempt them not who labour without necessity on Feast-days though they do it under this pretence that is to say by a motive of piety He believes then that it is lawful to play dance walk abroad without necessity and for pleasure only on Feast-days because according to the Jesuits Divinity these actions are not servile He pretends also though painting and hunting be servile of themselves yet the motive of pleasure and contentment which we look for in them hinders them from being so and makes them lawful And yet he maintains that to sweep a Church for devotion or to take delight to dress an Altar to hang a Chappel to carry alms unto the poor are actions prohibited on Feast-days and that necessity only not pleasure can hinder them from being servile As if the pleasure taken in hunting or painting were more noble and holy â—…an that which is taken in serving the poor and God himself in the Churches He finds it difficult to exempt these actions of Piety and Religion from mortal fin so rigorous would he appear in this point They are saith he at the least venial sins Saltem venialia sunt Filliutius had said it before him in the same terms and yet more clearly 1 Mundate scopis templum vestice parietes tapetibus hâ—jusmedi vidertur servilia nisi aliqua excusatio intercedat erit saltem peccatum veniale non motrale secluâ—o contemptu Filliutius qq moral tom 2. tract â— cap. 9. n. 156. pag. 267. It seems that to sweep Churches to hang them and other such like actions are servile and to do them without lawful excuse is at least a venial sin though not mortal if not done through contempt Strange Divinity that we need not to fear to contemn the Command of God forbidding us to work on the Feast and Lords-days by working for our selves because we take our pleasure in the work as in hunting and that we ought to fear contempt and mortal sin in working only for the Service of God and the Church So that these days which God hath ordained particularly for his Service may be employed according to this Divinity to serve any thing but
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
refutes This Saint saith that a man who goes to Church only to look on Women and to entertain himself with filthy thoughts in beholding them so that without this he would not go to Church nor hear Mass on a Feast-day doth not fulfil the Precept if he be there with such inclinations But Azor rejects this opinion eluding it by a very subtle distinction He durst not absolutely deny but this man commits a great crime but he saith that this crime is against God who forbids lust and not against the Church which obligeth him to hear Mass See how Azor discourses 4 S. Antoninus id voluit dicere ejusmodi hominem alias ad templum nullo modo accessurum nisi soeminae videndae aut intemperanter appetendae causa peccare Id verum est non in co quod rem divinam praeceptum omiserit sed quod templum adierit libidinis voluptatis gratia quod depravato animi affectu rem divinam audierit Quare si generatim loquamur omnino verum est aliorum responsum hoc praeceptum servari etiamsi cum peccato res divina audiatur Ibid. S. Antonin would say that a man that goes not to Church but only to see a woman and satisfie his lustful desires who without this would not go sins Which is true not because he hath violated the Command to hear Mass but because he went to Church for a dishonest passion and pleasure only and because he heard the Mass with a spirit altogether disordered For this cause speaking in general we must hold their opinion true who say that though we sin in hearing Mass yet we fail not of satisfying the precept Tambourin saith the same thing in terms capable to strike them with horrour who know what the Sacrifice of the Mass is 5 Si Missae quis intersit ad videndam mulierem vel ad aucupandam vanam gloriam satisfacit si interim sacrificio vacet Tambur l. 4. decal c. 2 sect 1. num 17 If any one saith he attend at Mass to look on a woman or to attain some vain-glory he satisfies the precept provided in the mean time he attend to the Sacrifice According to this Author the Sacrifice of the Mass may be attended to whilst we entertain and feed our minds with thoughts of lust and vanity that is to say that we may at the same time sacrifice unto God and the Devil with this difference that tends also to the Devils advantage that he is adored and served truly with the heart by the vanity and lust which it voluntarily entertains Whereas the homage we owe unto God in this estate is only apparent and altogether outward and consists in nothing but the presence and posture of the body And yet this Jesuit will have the Church hold it self satisfied with this manner of being present at Mass as with an entire accomplishment of its Precept Nothing more horrible can be spoken against God more disparaging against the Church more ridiculous and contrary to common sense as well as Faith and the most general resentments of all Religion Filliutius speaks also the same thing and brings the same Example 6 Prava intentio adjunctâ—… voluntati audiendi Missam uâ— aspiciendi mulierem libidinose c. dummodo sit sufficiens attentio non est contrarie huic praecepto quare satisfacit Filliutius qq moral tom 1. tr 5. c. 7. num 212. pag. 128. An evil intention saith he as to look lasciviously upon a woman joyned with a will to bear Mass is not contrary to the precept wherefore he who hears in this disposition fulfils it provided he give that attention which is necessary And a little after speaking of this attention which is required in hearing Mass he confesses indeed that it were to fail herein to use idle talk and discourse of affairs during the Mass but with this exception 1 Nisi vel consabulatio esset discontinuata partim scilicet loquendo partim attendendo uncommuniter fieri solet Ibid n. 216. Vnless this discourse be sometimes discontinued by talking one while and then attending as it is usually done He hath reason to say as it is usually done because it happens hardly at all to be done otherwise amongst the most indevout themselves Since though the respect for these Mysteries could not induce them unto this interruption yet the diversity of the actions and Ceremonies of the Mass would constrain thereunto all those who would not appear openly profane Private discourses must needs be interrupted that we may kneel when the Priest descends to the foot of the Altar at the beginning of the Mass when we stand up at the reading of the Gospel when we kneel after the Gospel or at least before the Consecration there is no person so irreligious as not to be silent and shew respect at least outwardly when the Priest elevates the Host to adore and cause it to be adored by the assistants as also when he communicates and when he gives the Communion So that when Filliutius saith that talking and discourse of affairs are lawful during the Mass and are not contrary to the Commandment of the Church provided they be interrupted and mingled with some attention he declares openly enough that they be all allowed there scarcely ever being other than of this sort Bauny is of the same opinion and he expounds it also more clearly in his Sum Chap. 17. pag. 278. in these terms Men and women who during the Sacrifice of the Mass interrupt your prayers by unnecessary discourses though often repeated fulfil the Commandment And he adds a little after That to be slightly distracted in prayer is of it self a slight fault Whence he infers That albeit it be reiterated and multiplied during the Mass it can never proceed to be mortal And from this discourse he concludes absolutely Therefore to speak a few words to our neighbour after returning to prayer and from thence to talk again is not a thing which in rigour can hinder our attention to the Mass But if nevertheless any person would chat continually during the Mass these Doctors would not condemn him to hear another provided these discourses were not about serious matters but slight and which did not too much employ the mind Filliutius supra num 216. Non de re seria sed levi quae non impediat attentionem necessariam And this attention is altogether external and consists in observing what the Priest doth and the Ceremonies he practises at least by intervals that he may stand up when he reads the Gospel kneel at the Consecration and adore our Lord at the elevation of the consecrated Host According to this Doctrine Tradesmen and women who prattle and are merry together at their work may in like manner chat and entertain themselves while they are together at the Mass because their ordinary discourses being not seldom about serious things which busie their minds they may apply the same
to use the Pope in a base manner and unbecoming his Holiness and Greatness to will that he should pay his debts and acknowledge the Services done him at the charge of the Church and to the prejudice of the obedience which all the Faithful owe unto its Commands That which Escobar saith is no less extravagant 1 Dormire quis nequit nisi sumpâ—a coeâ—… teneturne jejunare Minime That no person who cannot sleep when he hath not supped is obliged to fast And he adds that which is more strange 2 Si sâ—fficit mane câ—liatiunculam sumere vespere coenare teneturne Non tenetur qula nemo tenetur pervertere ordinem refectionumâ— Escobar tract 1. exam 13. num 67. pag. 212. That if this person by making his Collation in the morning and reserving his supper till night could fast he would not be obliged thereunto because no person is obliged to pervert the order of his repast If he had been well informed of the order of Fasting and the manner wherein it was instituted in the Church he would have known that there was no order of repast in Fasting because the order of Fasting is that we take but one refection and that at supper as Bellarmin himself and many others acknowledge and so they that dine on Fast-days do pervert the order of Fasting rather than they who make their Collation in the morning and sup at night if the Church of its usual kindness did not tolerate dinners on these days and slight Collations at night 3 Potesâ—ne aliquis alio se conâ—eâ—re ut jâ—juâ—ium vitet Fagundus pesse respondet Ibid. num 64. p. 212. This same Jesuit gives us also another Expedient to exempt us from Fasting without necessity and dispensation which is to depart from the place where the Fast is and to go to another place where it is not observed And if any think that this is to deceive our selves whilst we think to deceive the Church Filliutius as we have already observed answers in a like case 4 Proprie loquendo non est ulla fraus si quis jure suo utatur potius est fugere obligationem praecepti Filliutius mor. qq tom 2. cap. 7. n. 116. pag. 261. That this is not to deceive the Church nor to elude its Command but only to avoid the obligation of the Commandment in pursuance of the right which every man hath to do it when he can that is to say that if the Church hath a right to command a Fast or Mass we have also a right to avoid them and to do all we can that we may not be obliged to obey it and after this we shall not cease in the Judgment of the Jesuits to be faithful and obedient Children of the Church because we neither offend nor deceive in making use of this right Non est ulla fraus si quis utatur jure suo The last question which I shall report here concerning the dispensing with Fasts and the use of meats on Fasting-days is Escobars also 5 Quid de pueris Ante septennium comedere carnes poslunt Ibid. num 10. p. 201. Darine possunt carnes pueris ante septennium si sunt deli capaces Possunt quia accidentale est quod in aliquo usus rationis acceleretur Ibid. n. 52. pag. 210. Quid de Paganis Etiam quia non tenentur legibus Christisnorum Quid de amentibus Cum pueris ante septennium computandi Ibid. n. 52. p. 210. He demands if we may on Fast-days give flesh to children under seven years old To which he answers that they may eat it before they attain that age He demands a little after whether in case they have the use of reason before that age we may make them cat flesh And his answer is that we may because it is by accident that the use of reason in any person prevents that age It behoves them therefore who would give flesh to these children not to seem to know that they have the use of reason and that they may eat with a safer conscience to present it to them without acquainting them that the Church forbids them to eat it That we may hold them in this ignorance and conceal from them their fault they must be hindered from learning the Commandments of the Church and must not be brought to Church where they are published every Lords-day He saith the same thing of Pagans and those that have lost their Wits consenting that we may make them eat flesh on Fast-days as well as children because the one sort have no use of reason and the other are not subject to the Commands of the Church By this same reason we may suffer Fools and Infants to blaspheme and tolerate them in all sorts of crimes because having no reason they sin not in committing them We may make them also to violate all the Laws of the Church who are Infidels because they acknowledge not the Church and are not subject unto it but rather are its declared enemies As if a Father who had forbid something to be done in his house under grievous penalties could take it well for his Son to cause it to be done by a stranger or a fool not daring to do it himself In the mean time they would have the Church to be well satisfied with a Christian who out of a Frolick causes its Laws to be violated in his house by his houshold-servants under pretence that they are Children Fools or Insidels They must be Fools or Infants that can believe so great a Paradox and worse than an Infidel to have so little care of their Houshold and to proceed to so gross and visible a contempt of the Church and Religion But may we not at least condemn those who induce others to violate the Fast Tambourin who hath had a care to secure Victuallers in this point saith 1 Quando probabiliter putantur accedentes non violatu ri jejunium possunt caupones vendentes cibos iis ministrare venders atque Invitare Std quid si sit dubium Adhuc poterunt quia nisi certo constet contrarium nemo est praesumendus malus At quando probabiliter vel certo sciunt violaturos concestu est difficilius Concedimus tamen satis probabiliter ...... quia ministratio illa imo ultronea invitatio non fit à caupone vel venditore directe alliciendo ad non jejunandum atque adeo ad peccandum sed ad lucrum expiscandum Tambur lib. 4. decal cap. 5. sect 6. num 4. 7. That when they probably believe that those who come to their houses break not their Fast it is evident that an Inn-keeper or Cook may give and sell them victuals And though they doubt whether or no they violate the Fast they yet may do it because we ought not presume that a man is wicked unless we know it And by consequence we must not presume that he will break his Fast But if
Ibid. tract 6. cap. 8. num 209. pag. 158. Neither is a man bound saith he by vertue of the Precept of Confession to dispose himself for Grace For provided the Sacrament he doth receive be a true one though it be without form that is to say without Grace he satisfies the Precept As for the disposition unto Grace it is the end or consequent of the Sacrament which falls not under the Precept Amicus holds with the same Doctrine and grounds it on that Principle 3 Poenalia sunt potius restringenda quam amplificanda Cum igitur confessionis praeceptum fit poenale non debet amplificari mandatum confessionis formatae sed potius restringi ad actum confessionis informis modo quoad essentiam Sacramenti sit valida Amicus tom 8. disp 17. sect 3. num 30. pag. 277. That we ought rather restrain than extend things that are imposed as penalties Whence he draws this Conclusion that the Precept of Confession being imposed as a penalty we must not extend it so far as to say that it obliges to make such a Confession as may restore the sinner into a state of Grace but we must rather restrain it saying that it is enough to make one that doth not confer any Grace on him provided it be a true one and have every thing else that is of the Essence of a Sacrament This is not to honour the Sacraments very much to pretend that they are not Gods gifts and graces but penalties and that when Jesus Christ commanded Confession he ordained it not for our good as a remedy and a means to deliver us from our sins and to restore us into Grace but that he imposed it upon us as a yoke and a punishment as this Jesuit saith Cum igitur praeceptum confessionis sit poenale He that should say that a remedy ordained by a Physitian to a Patient were a punishment and not a relief and a favour or when a Prince ordains that a Malefactor shall confess the crimes whereof he desires the abolition that he uses him rigorously and imposes an odious Law upon him would pass for a man of little discretion and without common sense The Malefactors hold this for a favour in such sort that they ordinarily set down their crimes in the Letters of Grace which are given them in the most effectual and odious terms they can and are for the most part ready to say therein more than they have done rather than less to heighten the favour of the Prince to render it more ample and the better to assure themselves of it though this Declaration be publick and in writing And yet Amicus dares say that the Confession which God and the Church demand of a sinner that he may obtain remission of his sins which is secret and by word of mouth only is rather a penalty than a grace and favour Praeceptum confessionis est poenale He proceeds farther and is not contented to say the Church commands us not to confess Christianly and faithfully according to the Institution of Jesus Christ but he dares maintain also that it cannot so much as command us to receive the Sacrament of Penance in the manner instituted by Jesus Christ 4 Non posset Ecclesia praecipere totum Sacramentum poenitentiae prout est formaliter à Christo institutum The Church saith he cannot so much as command all that which is required to the Sacrament of Penance as it was instituted by Jesus Christ He expounds himself better 1 Quaeâ—itur an impleatur praeceptum confessionis per confessionem validam sed informem Respondeo dico impleri â—uâ—a impletur praeceptum quoâ—d substantiam finis autem qui est gratia non cadit sub praeceptum Filliutius qq mor. tom 1. tract 7. cap. 2. num 42. pag. 171. by rendring a reason of this opinion 1 Quoniam hoc Sacramentum prout est à Christo institutum essentialiter includit dolorâ—m internum confâ—ssionem omnium peccatorum etiam internorum Sed Ecclesia non habet potestatem supra actus mere internos Igitur non posset hoc Sacramentum prout â Christo institutum est praecipere Ibid. sect 2. num 12. pag. 274. For that saith he the Sacrament as it was instituted by Jesus Christ contains essentially an inward grief for sin and a confession of all even inward sins Now the Church hath no power over acts purely internal And by consequence cannot command the Sacrament in the manner it was instituted by Jesus Christ This language stifles the prime notions of Christianity and the most common apprehensions of the Church which believes on the contrary that it cannot command the Sacrament of Penance otherwise than Jesus Christ hath instituted it and hath no other design in this Commandment nor in all the rest than to follow the orders of Jesus Christ and to execute his will it being far remote from its thoughts and all appearance that it would have us receive the Sacraments otherwise than Jesus Christ hath ordained For it is not established for other end than to obey Jesus Christ and to cause him to be obeyed and its Commands serve only for the accomplishment of those of Jesus Christ according to the order which was given it in the persons of the Apostles when he sent them to teach all people and instruct them how to observe all things he had commanded them Docentes eos servare omnia quaecunque mandavi vobis Matth. 28. So that the Commands of Jesus Christ are contained in those of the Church and are as it were the Soul Spirit and Rule thereof since it doth nothing but confirm or determine what it is that Jesus Christ hath ordained and instituted as the usage of the Sacraments and the exercise of vertues which are good works Which shews that the Jesuits know not the estate of the Church nor its mind nor its conduct considering it as an humane and secular Society which regards only what is outward since it hath no other scope than civil peace and temporal happiness or as the Synagogue of the Jews which adhered only to the letter and outward exercises of Religion and Gods Law Though we cannot find in the very times of the Synagogue it self any Jews who have affirmed that the Law might be fulfilled by Sacriledges and manifest and voluntary impieties as the Jesuits who say that we may satisfie the Commandments of communicating confessing hearing Mass and such like by doing them with contempt and all sorts of unsufferable irreverences and profanations Which never came into the head of any man but Casuists who had any sense of Religion But these are the new fruits of the new Divinity of the Jesuits and the rare Method which they have invented for the Service of God in the Church it self and under the new Law which is all Spirit and Charity which considers not what it sees but what it sees not as saith S. Paul because it neither
14. num 1. pag. 65. Others will say with Filliutius and Layman that it is because when the Church commands any thing it cannot prescribe the manner of doing it nor the end nor motive wherefore it ought to be done Finis praecepti non cadit sub praeceptum saith Filliutius Filliutius mor. qq tom 1. tr 7. cap. 2. n. 24. pag. 171. And Layman adds imo nec cadere potest Layman l. 1. tr 4. cap. 4. n. 6. pag. 49. Finally the greater part and almost all of them will tell you with Amicus Coninck and Escobar that the Church hath no power over internal actions and that it cannot command them nor oblige us to accompany the outward actions which we exercise by its order with the inward actions of vertue which are necessary to their being well done Ecclesia non habet potestatem supra actus mere internes saith Amicus Amicus tom 8. dub 17. sect 2. num 12. pag. 274. Ecclesia absolute non potest actus mere internos praecipere aut vetare saith Coninck Coninck q. 83. de Sacram. art 6. dub unico num 291. 292. pag. 285. 286. and Escobar after him Ecclesia actus internos non potest praecipere Escobar tr 1. exam 12. cap. 1. n. 2. pag. 199. The last of these answers is most general And indeed the other two depend on it and are referred unto it as Conclusions unto their Principle For the reason wherefore according to them the Church cannot prescribe the manner of doing things which it commands nor the end wherefore they ought to be done is because the end and good motion for which they ought to be done that they might be well done are acts of the will and internal power upon which they pretend that the Church hath neither power nor command Ecclesia actus internos non potest praecipere So that being here to declare the Principles of all the mischievous Maxims which we have reported before which tend to the ruine and entire abolition of the Commands of God and the Church and all Christian Piety I will only stand upon the Examination of this That the Church cannot absolutely command or forbid internal acts Ecclesia non potest absolute praecipete actus internos because this comprehends all the rest To make appear that this Principle is common amongst the Jesuits we shall not need fresh proof For besides that they make no difficulty to confess it I have already before in divers places reported many passages wherein they use it to elude the Commandments of God and the Church and teach men to undervalue and despise them And to refute this so pernicious Doctrine it will suffice to have represented as I have done the wicked sequels which infallibly arise from it and the consequences contrary unto the Foundations of Religion and Christian Piety which depend thereon and are inseparable from it But because that this point is very important and hath a great extent in matters of Religion and good Manners I will here relate some more passages upon this subject to make it yet more clear and make the pernicious sequels of this novel Doctrine of the Jesuits evidently appear Layman speaking of this matter gives a charitable advice or rather a Law to the Pastors and Bishops of the Church saying 1 Non poterit facile legislator aut Praelatus sub peccato obligare subditos ad adhibendum intentionem aliamve internam dispositionem accidentalem Lay-man lib. 1. tr 4. cap. 4. num 13. pag. 51. That it is no easie matter to find occasions wherein a Law-giver or a Superior may oblige his Subjects under pain of sin to have an intention or other inward accidental disposition He puts no difference betwixt Secular Law-givers and Pastors of the Church nor betwixt Authority of those and the Ordinances of these He denies equally to both a Power of regulating what is internal of their Subjects and to prescribe unto them the intention and other spiritual dispositions in which they ought to do what they command them He excepts not the Superiors in Religious Orders unto whom yet he gives in this point more power than unto the Bishops and the Pope himself 2 Praelatis tamen regularibus paulo major potestas in suos competit ratione voti religiosi obediendi Praelato in omnibus quae secund um regulam consuerudinem Ordinis praecipiuntur Ibid. The Prelates Regulars saith he have a little more power over their Inferiors because of the Religious vow they have made to obey their Superior in all that he shall command them according to the Rule and Customs of their Order He grounds this pretended advantage of the Superiors of the Religious Orders above the Pastors of the Church upon the vow which the Religious make to obey them in all things as if the Faithful were not obliged by Baptism to render all manner of obedience to the Church as well as those who enter into any Religious Order promise to keep the Rule and to obey those who received them into it and as if a Religious person could give more power over himself to his Superior than Jesus Christ hath given his Church and its Pastors over the Christians whom he hath committed to their Governance But he grounds himself also upon the Authority of Suarez 3 Qua de re Suarez lib. 4. de legibus cap. 12. in fine ubi monet discrimen esse inter obligationem regularium ex voto obedientiae obligationem aliorum ex lege civili vel Ecclesiastica Nam lex fundatur in jurisdictione quae solum data est quantum expedit ad bonum communitatis Praeceptum autem Praelati regularis fundatur in voluntate voventis seu pacto promissione ejus quae quia principaliter fit Deo actu etiam mere interno fieri potest Ibid. Who saith he treating on this subject observes that there is difference betwixt the obligation of Religious persons by vertue of their vow of obedience and that of others by vertue of Civil and Ecclesiastick Law For the Law is founded upon Jurisdiction and Authority which is not given the Law-giver but for the common good But the command of a Superior in a Religious Order is founded upon the will of him who makes the vow and upon the covenant and promise by which he is obliged to obey And this promise being principally made to God who hath power over the internal acts it may be extended to these acts as well as the external If this arguing be good for the Superiors of Religious Orders it must needs be good also for the Superiors of the Church For we submit our selves voluntarily to the Superiors of the Church as the other submit voluntarily to the Superiors in a Religious Order We become Christians voluntarily as we become Religious voluntarily and as we promise obedience to the Superiors of a Religious Order in becoming a Monk so
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
exam 2. n. 73. p. 19. A person saith he is ashamed of some crime committed he may make a general confession and accuse himself of this sin amongst others without saying whether he have confessed it otherwise at onother time Because this disguise doth not much change the judgement of the Confessor This is nothing but a sleight to deceive a Confessor and to preserve ones reputation with him by betraying ones conscience But this same Jesuit passes yet farther and saith formally that one may lye in confession See here his words h Dicit quis Confessario se velle cum eo confessionem generalem gercre non ideo tenetur omnia mortalia exprimere quia quamvis mentiatur id tament parum refert ad Confessarii judicium Escebar tr 7. ex 4. n. 118. p. 818. A person addresseth himself to a Confessor and saith that he would make a general confession to him he is not for all that obliged to declare unto him all the mortal sins that he hath committed for although he lye it is of small concern to the judgement the Confessor is to make of him But if they who have any sense of God and Religion cannot resolve to use these kind of surprizes and disguisements and these lyes in a Sacrament in which they speak to God in the person of his Priest who holds his place the same Jesuit will give them also another expedient to deceive the Confessor familiarly that they may continue in his good opinion which is not to discover to him other then their sleighter faults and to have another Confessor whom they may chose at their pleasure to confesse to him their great crimes i Duos quis adis Confessarios quorum alteri venialia confitetur ut bonam famam apud Confessarium ordinarium tueatur Rogo num delinquat A person saith this Jesuit hath two Confessors to whom he applyes himself to the one he confesseth his mortal sins and to the other his venial that he may continue in good opinion with his ordinary Confessor The question is whether he doth ill The case is important he must take a sociate to resolve it that he may be more confidently believed k Cum Suario assero non delin qacre Quiâ—…est consessio integra nec est ver a hypocrisis nec mendatium Ibid. n. 135. p. 821. I maintain saith he with Suarez that this person doth noevil at all His reason is not lesse strange then his answer since he pretends that it is neither lye nor hypocrisie to conceal his sins from his Confessor and to make h im believe he hath no great ones though he hath committed such to maintain himself in good reputation with him Emanuel Sa approves this practice provided it be not common l Habere ordinarie duos Confessarios alteruns cui gravia dicas alterum cui levia ut probus babearis Quidam dicunt esse peccatum mortale ob illusum Consâ—ssorem secus vero esset si semel aut iterum fiat ob pudorem verecundiam Emanuel Sa verbo Confessor â—um 16 pag. 76. There are that hold saith he that it is a mortal sin to have two Confessors in ordinary to confesse to one his great sins and to the other his small sins that he may passe with him for an honest man because this is to deceive the Confessor and to mock him But there is no sin in doing this onely once or twice through bashfulness That is to say that it is lawfull to deceive a Confessor to mock him and make sport with him provided that it be not common and that it be done onely some times and upon some motive so good as is that of Pride and Vanity ut probus habearis That thou mayst bo esteemed an honest man Filliutius who examines and handles this case most exactly acknowledges that many condemn it for mortal sin Some for hypocrifie which is a kind of lye which cannot be a small fault in a matter so holy and so important as confession is others because at least the custom and will to continue in this practice is a note of great corruption and a very wicked disposition in him who is in this estate and which cannot be excused from mortal sin To which may be added the motive which leads to this disguisement which is a Vanity and Pride so much more criminal and unsufferable in that it is practised upon design and in an action which ought to be the most sincere and humble of all that are Religious but notwithstanding all these considerations he forbears not to maintain with his fraternity that there is no evil to use this practice so much and so often as one will or that it is no great evil m Quaeres an sit contra integritatem Confessori ordinario tantum venialia peccata confiteri alteri vero extraordinario gravia quae occurrunt l' Respondco etsi Sylvester conf 1. q. 6. dicat esse peccatum mortale ob hypocrisin virtuale mendacium Victoria in Summa n. 169. asserat esse mortale quando id sit animo perseverandi in tali consuetudine tamen dicendum est non esse absolute contra integritatem neque peccatum mortale Filliutius tom 1. tract 7. c. 4. n. 75. p. 175. You will inquire of me saith he if it be against the integrity of confession to confesse onely your sleight faults to your ordinary Confessors and to have another extraordinary one to whom to confesse your great sins when you happen to fall into them I answer that Sylvester saith that though there be nothing herein that is contrary to the integrity of confession yet there is mortal sin therein because of the hypocrisie and virtual lying that is in it And Victoria assures us also that this is mortal sin when it is done with design to continue in this custom But we must say absolutely that there is no mortal sin in it nor any thing contrary to the integrity of confession He proves by a pleasant reason that he that treats his confessor in this sort is not properly a hypocrite and that he deceiveth him not at all properly a lyer n Non est proprie mendax quia dicit falsum sed tantum permittit alium decipi Ibid. because he relates no falsity neither to one nor other of his Confessors but onely permits one of his Confessors to be deceived though there be no deceiver For he that confesses himself is none according to him and the Confessor cannot be any because he could not deceive himself and he must have at least a gift of Prophesie to be able to divine that one surprises him by hiding his principal sins and confessing onely his small ones It would be easie to report yet many more examples of like shifts of like foolish childish and ridiculous sleights by which the Jesuits do teach people to mock God and the Ministers of his Church in abusing the Sacraments and making void
their vows but an occasion to speak hereof yet more to purpose will be presented when we treat of confession and of the vows of Religion III. POINT Of Unfaithfulness in conversation and common discourse SECT I. An expedient which the Jesuits give for to deceive the World and to take a false Oath even before a Judge without perjury THe Jesuits have the reputation commonly to be Masters of equivocations and one may see it indeed that it is not without cause For to establish this kind of knowledge in the world and to facilitate the practice amongst all sorts of persons they do all that an affectionate Master can do for his profession and for his disciples to make them perfect in his Trade 1. First of all they give rules of equivocations then they note divers forms of making them and finally to facilitate the knowledge and practice of them they make themselves some equivocations which they propose as models and examples whereby to teach others to make the like 2. They determine the occasions wherein they may be made use of or rather without bounds or restraint they give liberty in almost all sorts of occasions to make use of them and some times even without any occasion or reason 3. They shew how they are to be made use of and give the method as well for persons of discretion as for more simple and more grosse 4. They give an invention to maintain the possession and use of equivocation so that there is no sort of person that can by any means whatsoever hinder from making use of them without any scruple These four points shall be so many fections of this title which is of Unfaithfulness in words and common discourse SETC. II. Rules and Examples of equivocation taken out of the Books of the Jesnits FIrst of all they declare that if one inquire whether the Prince be at Court a Jurare verbis aequivocis sine justa causa v. c. quod Princeps sit in aula intelligendo pictum lethale peccatum affirmat Lessius probabilius Sanchez negat Escobar tract 1. exam 1. num 35. pag. 76. it is permitted to assure him without any necessity and even to swear without any great sin that he is there though he be not there intending that he is there in picture This is the opinion of Sanchez and Escobar who declare plain enough that one may affirm it simply without any sin because they acknowledge it not to be other than a venial sin to affirm it with an oath without any just cause sine justa causa so that a small occasion would suffice them to discharge this oath of all sin Filliutius speaking of mental restriction which is permitted according to the rules of Divinity brings many examples which he took out of Suarez which he gives for a model b Talem ait Suarez esse illam Non comedi intelligendo hodie cum interrogans putet alioqui non comedisse rem illam Behold here an example saith he which Suarez reports You may say I have not eaten of such a dish intending to day though the intention of him that asked were to know if you had ever eaten of it Another example is this c Item illam Petrus non est domi cum tamen revera sit Verbum enim est sumitur à dicente pro comedit Denique dici potest de aliis similibus Filliutius qq mor. tom 2. tract 25. c. 11. n. 327. d. 204. You may say Peter is not at home Petrus non est domi which signifies ordinarily that he is not in the house though he be there taking this word est for to signifie he eats so that you have a design to say that he does not eat in the house And we may judge of other like sorts of speaking equivocally in the same manner And a little before proposing some examples of equivocation in the same place whence they were taken which I reported before he hath put this foremost d Afferri solent exempla aliquot Et primo ejns qui promisit exterius aliquid sine intentione promittendi Si enim interrogetur an promiserit negare potest intelligendo se non promisisse promissione obligante sic etiam jurare Ibid. They are accustomed saith he to relate some examples of equivocations for to make their Doctrine and rules to be better understood as in the first place of him who outwardly promises a thing without an intent to promise For if one asked whether he had promised or no he may deny it meaning that he had not promised with a promise obliging and with this restriction he may also swear He presupposes without doubt that perjury cannot be committed more to purpose then to support an equivocation which is made purposely to hide some deceit and unfaithfulness Sanchez saith the same thing and yet more and for to be better understood he reduces the general thesis to a particular case e Quoties quit sive vere sive ficte promittens matrimonium immunis est ab aliquam cansam ab implendi obligatione potest à Judice vocatus jurare se non promisisse intelligendo it a ut teneatur implere Sanchez op mor. l. 3. c. 6. n. 32. p. 29. So often as saith he a person who hath promised marriage to another whether it were made sincerely or onely in appearance is discharged by any reason from holding his promise being called before a Judge he may swear he hath not made this promise meaning he hath not so made it as to be obliged to observe it And that it may be known what reason he requires for this he holds f Non tantùm quando causa est certa non im plendi etiam quoties sapient is judicio est proba bile non teneri servare quia potest amplectendo opinionem probabilem existimare se tuta conscientia non obligatum Ibid. that it is not necessary that the pretence upon which he grounds his belief that he is not obliged to marry her to whom he hath passed his word be true or certain but it sufficeth that it have some appearance of truth and that it be probable Because saith he following a probable opinion he may perswade himself in conscience that he is not obliged He had reported before an example taken out of other Authors who teach g Qui docent cum qui nummos mutuo acceptos solvit posse à Judica rogatum de mutuo jurare se illud non accepisse intelligendo it a ut teneatur illud solvere Atque idem dicendum est si quacunque alia ex causa ab eo mutuo solvendo liber esset Atque idem credo si tunc non teneretur solvere eo quod terminuâ— ad quem mutuum datum suit non est impletus vel prae paupertate excusatur debitor à â—unc solvendo Ibid. That a person who hath payed the money which he borrowed being examined by a