Sacramentum novae legis Ibid. That Christians who live under the Law of Grace are not obliged under the pain of mortal sin to love God so often with a love of supernatural charity to obtain life and avoid death eternal because it is sufficient for them to have attrition receiving at the same time some Sacrament of the new Law Amicus saith the same thing of the Commandment of Contrition for our conversion unto God after sin But I will not stand here to alledge or make reflection on what Molina saith because it is spoken of elsewhere I will only add to clear up the conformity of the Jesuits upon this Point that which Filliutius saith He demands 1 Pro quo tempore urgeat ejus obligatio An statim post pâ—ccatum commissum Secunda sententia negat etiamsi occurrat opportunitas facile fieri possit Respondeo dico 1. tenendum cum secunda sententia Filliut tom 1. qq mor. tr 6. cap. 8. num 198. 199. pag. 157. In what time we are obliged unto contrition and whether it be so soon as we have sinned And after he hath reported two opinions of which the second saith he denies that we are so soon obliged though we have conven ience and that we may easily do it he concludes in these terms I answer and say in the first place that we must follow the second opinion which holds that we are not obliged He descends also yet farther in particular and demands 2 Quibus temporibus per se obliget contritio ex jure naturali Ibid. num 205. Respondeo dico 1 si respiciatur lex justitiae qua homo tenetur satisfacere Deo pro injuria peccati sic non videtur obligari nisi quando adest periculum mortis Ibid. on what occasion the Precept of Contrition obliges by the Law of Nature Whereto he gives three Answers The first is that if we regard the Law of Justice by which a man is obliged to satisfie God for the injury which he hath done unto him by sin in this manner he seems not to be obliged to contrision and sorrow for his sin but only when he finds himself in danger of death His other Answer is 3 Si respiclatur lex charitatis erga Deum jute naturali obligat ante mortem Ibid. num 206. That if we respect the love which is due unto God we are obliged unto it by that Law of Nature before death That is to say that though in rigour and without any injustice a sinner may remain in his sin and aversion from God until his death notwithstanding he ought of charity to prevent that time and to love God sometimes without attending for this extremity if he will not ask him forgiveness as soon as he hath offended him nor even for many years after it is reasonable that at least he pass not above five or seven years before he do it This is the charitable advice which Filliutius gives him in these terms 4 In universum intra annum non videtur obligare quolibet septennio vel quinquennio est probâ—bile 〈◊〉 alibi dicam de charitate Ibid. n. 208. Speaking generally it seems that a man is not obliged thereto within one years time that he should be obliged thereto within five or from seven years to seven is very probable as we shall see elsewhere where I shall speak the same thing of Charity He holds that a sinner after he hath passed five or seven years in his sin and in a voluntary aversion from God and all others in like manner who have passed over so long a time without once thinking of loving God will be obliged the one to ask God pardon and the other to love him at least after so long a time If this be probable as he saith the contrary is also and by consequence of two probable opinions we may follow which we will with a safe conscience according to the Jesuits Divinity a sinner may persist in his sin and in his aversion from God and every other man in his insensibleness without having any motion of love unto God after he hath already past seven years without thinking of him The third Answer of Filliutius is 5 Si respâ—ciatur lex charitatis propriae probabile est obligare etiam extra articulum Ibid. num 206. That if we regard the Law of Charity which every one owes unto himself it is very probable that he is obliged to have contrition and sorrow for sin before the article of death And as if he feared lest this should also torment some consciences and give them too much trouble and scruple he adds 6 Ob authoritatem autem Doctorum quos citavimus in praecedenti quaesito non est improbabile quod non obliget Ibid. For all that because of the Authority of the Doctors whom we have quoted in the former question it is probable that he is not obliged thereto That is to say that a man who is in mortal sin may with a safe conscience according to this probable opinion persist voluntarily all his life in a state of enmity against God and delay his conversion until the point of death demanding only forgiveness of God when he is ready to dye and can offend him no longer without doing herein any thing against the charity he owes to himself any more than against that which he owes unto God I can hardly believe that a Jesuit would approve a Child who should deal with his Father in this manner as he saith we may carry our selves towards God and I know not whether he would counsel any of his Brethren who had a mortal disease to suffer it five or seven years or even until he should see himself nigh unto death without calling for the Physitian and without applying any remedy thereto and whether be believes he may do this without danger of killing the body of his Brother by this delay and his own Soul by so remarkable a negligence especially if he had an assured remedy whereof it was only his own fault if he did not make use I know well at the least that if herein he pretend not to offend against the Laws of Justice and Christian Charity he shall transgress those of the Society who have so well provided for the health of all their Brethren that inftead of delaying to the extremity they have ordained to cause the Physitian to visit them from time to time though there be none of them sick What kind of prudence must this be which hath so great care of the health and life of the body and so little of the Souls Father Celot is not content to say as Filliutius and others that a sinner is not obliged to seek God after he hath offended him but even that God himself preventing and seeking as we may say his friendship by the inspirations and good motions he bestows on him he may refuse and reject them effectually
Azor. Pag. 378 Article IV. That the Jesuits teach that the Church cannot command spiritual and internal Actions that its Laws and Guidance are humane that it is it self only a Politick Body Sanchez Filliutius Layman Amicus Escobar Celot Pag. 385 THE FIRST BOOK Of the Inward and Outward Principles of SIN THE FIRST PART Of the Inward Principles of Sin These Principles are Lust Ignorance Ill Habits the Intention and the Matter or the Object of Sin I will treat severally of these five internal principles of Sin in so many different Chapters CHAPTER I. Of Lust in general CHarity and Lust divide our whole life these are the two Trees of the Gospel of which the one produceth alwayes good fruits and the other can produce none but bad As all the good which we do comes from the Spirit of God who works it in us and causes us to do it forming in our hearts those good desires which are as it were the seed thereof in the same manner Concupiscence which every one beateth within him is the general source of all the temptations which we feel or to speak better it is a continual temptation which carries us on to evil and sin in drawing us without ceasing by secret sollicitations to sensual and temporal good which serve for a bait and entertainment to our passions This is that which made St. Leo to say a Nullum peccatum sine cupiditate committitur omnis illicitus appetitus illius aviditatis est morbus S. Leo Serm. 9. de Passione cap. 4. That he committed no sin without lust and that every unlawfull desire is a sicknesse and disorder which comes from that violent motion which carries us on unto evil So that to justifie that the Divinity of the Jesuits makes an entertainment for sin we need no other proof neither can any better be brought than to shew that it favoureth and nourisheth the lusts of men as much as it can upon all occasions as I shall make clearly appear in the whole progresse of this Book by the simple representation of their Opinions and their Maximes This Chapter of Lust in general will notwithstanding not be unprofitable for that as our bodies are so composed of four qualities and four humours that there is alwayes one which is predominant and prevails above all others and which at length gives the name unto the temperament and causes one to be stiled melancholique and another cholerique thus likewise our souls are so I will not say composed but corrupted by the lusts and passions which sin hath produced therein that there is no person who carries them not all in his bosome enclosed in concupiscence which is thereof the spring and principle although they appear not nor act altogether equally in all sorts of persons yet there is commonly one more strong than the rest which domineers in every person and which seems to be as it were proper unto him adhering to his nature his age his manner of living and his condition or profession so we see that the lusts and passions of young people are other than those of the ancient that those of persons of great Birth are different from those of Peasants and Artificers and those of Merchants from those of Lawyers For this cause that I may compleatly accomplish the design I have undertaken to prove that the Divinity of the Jesuits doth favour the lusts and passions of men so much as is possible for it and consequently those sins which are the products and effects thereof I will make it appear that in every condition and profession they cherish the lust and vice which is peculiar thereunto as namely the covetousnesse and frauds of Merchants the Ambition and Vanity of the Nobility the in justice of Officers But first of all I will say something in general of the more common lusts and passions which are found in all men and are in them as it were the spring of corruption the matter of vices and the cause of all sins as Hate Pride Covetousness Vncleanness Gluttony and Injustice For this purpose I will divide this first Chapter into 6. Articles ARTICLE I. Of Hatred That the Divinity of the Jesuits entertains aversions against our Neighbour that it permits to wish and do him ill and even to kill him though it be for temporal concernments yea though also you be assured that in killing him you damn him BAuny in his Summe after he had delivered unto us the marks of an irreconcilable hatred in these terms a Bauny in his Summe ch 7. p. 81. The third mark of hatred against our neighbour is not to be willing to accompany him to have such an alienation and so violent from him as not to refuse to talk with him upon any matter whatsoever nor to assist him in his businesse or not to pardon him at all when he acknowledges his fault and offers reasonable satisfaction And after he hath reported two authorities and two passages one of St. Ambrose and the other of St. Austen in which these holy Doctors shew us the obligation we have to love and wish well to one another and to serve one another as members of the same body he concludes boldly in this manner Notwithstanding I believe it is no mortal sin to be wanting in these points if it be not in case of scandal that is to say it is never or almost never mortal sin according to the doctrine which he establisheth Chap. 39. p. 623. that a man is not capable of the sin of scandal but when by a formal design he doth some thing to destroy his neighbours soul which is a design of hell and which seems not easily to come into the spirits of other persons than the damned and Devils Anthony de Escobar sayes the same thing briefly in his Moral Divinity where after he hath put this question b An indignatio non volentis videre vel audire eum cui irascitur sit mortale peccatum Communites veniale esse Toletus affirmat De Escob Tract 2. Exam. 2. de peccatis n. 98. p. 304. If that indignation which is the cause that a man will neither see nor speak with him against whom he is angry be a mortal sin He answers that Tolet assures us That ordinarily this is but a venial sin The words of this Jesuit are of great weight with his Society because first of all he professes to advance nothing of his own and withall to borrow nothing of Authors that are strangers but only to report in every matter the opinion of the Doctors and Writers of the Society c Hoc ingenue profitear me nihil toto libello scripsisse quod Societatis Jesu non acceperim ex Doctore Quas enim proprias passim resolutiones innuo ex schola Societatis aperte deductas existimaverim De Escobar in Idaea operis in fine I sincerely declare saith he that I have written nothing in all this Book which I have not taken out of some Doctor
of the Society of Jesus and I would not have it believed that the resolutions which I have ordinarily given as my own are any other than conclusions evidently drawn from the principles of the School of the Society 2. Of all the Casuists of the Society he chose 24. particularly the most knowing and experimented whom he considered and hearkned to as his Masters or rather as the Masters of all the World and he represents them as sitting upon 24. Thrones to teach the whole Church abusing in this that place of the Revelation where 24. Elders sitting about the Throne of God are spoken of a Consident lectiores 24. Jesuitae seniores quidem non aetate solum sed scientia videlicet Sanctius Azorius Toletus c. Ibid. in principio I present unto you saith he 24. Jesuits sitting on so many Thrones having chosen them as the most antient and most elevate of the Society not only for age but also for knowledge that is Sanctius Azor Tolet c. 3. Neither yet doth he take indifferently all that these knowing-men have said or written he hath chosen that only which is best and most certain in every of them concerning all the matters which they handle yet without depriving himself of the liberty of reporting also out of other Authors of the Society whatsoever he could that was good in them b Qualibet in materiâ inprimis authorum Societatis exbaurio medullam Confessariorum in examen exponendam Ibid. ad finem In every matter saith he I have kept close peculiarly to the principal Authors of the Society and I have chosen out of them the best and as it were the marrow of their discourse leaving it to the discretion of Confessors to make use thereof as they shall judge to be convenient 4. And that he might give all kind of repute to these 24. Elders of the Society whom he compares to the 24. Elders of the Revelation he proposes their Resolutions in matter of Conscience as so many Revelations made unto them and which they had received from the mouth of God and Jesus Christ Here are his terms c Ego solummodo memoro reserationem factam ab Agno suis authoribus Jesuitis quorum scripta absumere curavi Ibid. ad finem I only report the Revelation which the Lamb hath made to the principal Jesuits whom he hath chosen for his Secretaries whose Writings I have devoured like as St. John in the Revelation devoured the Book presented to him by the Lamb. After this none can easily judge but that the Resolutions of these Authors ought to pass in the Society not only for common and assured Opinions but also for Oracles and almost for Articles of Faith of which they are not permitted to doubt And indeed the Book of this Jesuit is in so great reputation in the Society and they have so dispersed it all over that it hath been already printed 39. times as is observed in the first Page Emanuel Sa who laboured near upon 40. years in the study of Moral Divinity and to compose a Book which he hath published in form of Aphorisms as he saith himself in his advice to the Reader treating of Charity is not contented to say with Bauny and Escobar that one may without mortal sin desire never more to behold ones Enemy but he addes thereto that it is permitted to desire his death and to be well pleased that it is come upon him d Potes optare hosti tibi alioqui valde nocituro mortem non odio sed ad vitandum damnum tuum item de morte ejus gaudere ob bonum inde secutum Emanuel Sa verbo Charitas n. 5. p. 46. You may saith he desire the death of an Enemy that is capable of doing you much hurt provided you do not this out of hatred but only to avoid the evil which he would do you It is also permitted you to rejoyce in his death because of the good which may come to you thereby We need only according to this Author love our own Interest that we may without crime desire the death of our Neighbour and rejoyce in it when it befalls him That is to say that Covetousness or Ambition may justifie a murtherous and inhumane soul and that instead of being doubly culpable it ought to pass for innocent For he condemns only these who desire the death of a man in a frolick and without being transported by any interest There is no Murderer nor Parricide who may not very well fit unto himself this maxim and who may not easily make use thereof to cover his crime and his passion If you reproach him that in the fight of God he hath killed his Brother by the will and desire he hath had to see him dead he will tell you with this Jesuit that he had not desired his death but that he feared he would do him some mischief non odio sed ad vitandum damnum not out of hatred but to avoid damage or because he might hinder him from enjoying some good ob bonum inde secutum So almost all mortal hatreds and all revenges shall be permitted because they do not arise commonly but from worldly interest of Ambition Covetousness and Pleasure and it belongs only to Devils and Desperadoes to desire the death of men of pure malice and without design of drawing therefrom any worldly advantage Bauny extends this maxim indifferently to all sorts of persons and giveth the self-same liberty to a Mother who according to him may desire the death of her Children One may saith he in the 6. Chapter of his Summe p. 73. desire evil to befall his Neighbour without sin when he is urged thereunto by any good motive So Bonacina on the First Commandment d. 3. q. 4. n. 7. exempts a Mother from all fault who desired the death of her Daughters a Quando ob deformitatem aut inopiam nequeat juxta animi sui desiderium eas nuptui tradere quia occasione earum male secum agitur à marito aut injuriis afficitur Non enim proprie detestatur filias ex dispticentia earum sed in detestationem proprii mali when she could not dispose of them in mariage according to her desire because of their deformity and poverty or because for their sakes she was abused by her Husband or injured For she did not properly detest her Daughters out of a displeasure towards them but in detestation of her own evil He terms a lawfull motive to carry a Mother on to desire the death of her Daughters the want of beauty for that they were not handsome ob deformitatem or because they were not rich enough aut inopiam and because she could not marry them according to her desire that is not after her ambition or so advantagiously as she would I leave it to the Reader to reflect upon this abominable maxim and to draw consequences from it I wonder only that Bauny did not carry it yet
farther and said not that this Mother might procure the death of her Daughters as well as desire it provided she might do it without scandal For this seems to be the necessary consequence of his opinion for she may do that which she may desire the things which are lawfull to be desired cannot be other than good and lawfull And indeed this is the Doctrine of the Society and almost of all the Jesuits asserting and maintaining it in other matters changing only the examples and not the maxime as I shall shew when I come to speak of Murder I will here only report as it were by way of advance one passage of Lessius who assures us b Dico secundo fas etiam est viro honorato occidere invasorem qui fustem vel alapom nititur impingere ut ignominiam inserat si aliter haec ignominia vitari nequit Lessius de just jure l. 2. c. 9. dub 12. n. 77. p. 81. That it is permitted to a man of Honour to kill an enemy who with intent to affront him attempts to give him a blow with a cudgel or a box on the ear if he cannot otherwise avoid this dishonour And a little after repeating the reason for which one may attempt the life of another and deprive him thereof he speaks in this manner c Quartus modus est si nomini meo falsis criminationibus apud Principem Judicem vel viros honoratos detrahere nitaris nec ulla ratione possim illud damnum famae avertere nisi te occulte interficiam Petrus Navartus n. 375. inclinat licitum esse talem è medio tollere eandem tanquam probabiliorem defendit Bannes q. 64. art 7. d. 4. addens idem dicendum etiamsi crimen sit verum si tamen est occultum Lessius ibid. n. 81. The fourth case in which you may kill without sin is when by false reports attempt is made to decry you in the spirit of a Prince a Judge or other persons of Honour and that you cannot otherwise hinder this wrong they would do you in your reputation than by killing him secretly who is the author thereof P. Navarre n. 375. inclines very much to agree that it is lawfull to kill this Enemy Bannes holds the same opinion the more probable q. 64. art 7. d. 4. And he addes That we may affirm the same thing though the crime whereof he accuseth us were true so it be secret In this case and these examples of Bauny Escobar Sa and Lessius the three principal degrees of Hatred against our Neighbour may be remarked the first is to have and entertain an ill will and an irreconcilable aversion against him so as not to be willing either to see or speak with him any more the second is to desire his death the third is actually to kill him And all this is lawfull or it is no great sinne according to the Divinity of these Authors the Jesuits After this that might be justly said of those who teach these pernicious maxims as well as of those that practise them upon their word which our Saviour Christ said of Tyrants d Occidunt corpus post haec non habent amplius quid faciant Luc. c. 12. v. 4. They kill the body and after there is nothing that they can do if they did not proceed yet farther and gave power to make souls perish also as well as bodies in permitting to kill him from whom we fear to receive any displeasure or any damage in reputation or temporal good though we be assured that he shall be damned This is the opinion a Quod autem circumstantia illa aeteâ—nt interitus injusti aggressor is non impediat affiâ—miat Caiet 2.2 q. 64. art 7. Molina de just commut tr 3. d. 13. n. 1. p. 1762. Tunc lege charitatis non est necesse praeponere vitam illius spiritalem nostrae propriae corporalâ— imò vero neque nostrohonori aut bonis nostris externis quae ille injustè velit à nobis auserre of Molina who saith that this circumstance ought not to hinder from killing him and that there is no Law of Justice noreven of charity it self which obligeth us to spare the eternal life of his soul no more then that of his body This is also the opinion b Quid si invasor sit ebrius vel amens ad tempus quem ante amentiam mihi certo constet fuisse in peccato mortali cum co in amentiam incidisse Respondeo ex Silvio eodem art 7. q. 3. adhuc in ejusdem amentia licitè posse invasum contra invasorem suae vitae cum moderaoune inculpatae tutelae usque ad necem invadent is se difendere Amicus tom 5. de just jure d. 36. sect 5. n. 85. p. 408. of Amicus who that he might better expresse his mind upon this case proposes an example of a man who had committed a mortal Sin and afterwards was drunk or fallen into madness he assures us that if he assaile us in this estate we ought not to make any difficulty to kill him though we know assuredly that he is in mortal sin and by consequence that he shall be damned This is also the Doctrine of the four and twenty Elders of the Society or rather it is the opinion of all the Society reported by Escobar who hath placed this decision amongst the Oracles which the Lamb hath pronounced by the mouth and written by the pen of the Jesuits whom he hath chosen to be his interpreters c Malefactores possunt occidi nocturni diurni fures alii quicumque malefactores etiam certo damnandi De Escobar tr 1. exam 7. c. 2. pag. 1154. sect 1. num 21. We may kill saith Escobar all those that do us wrong as those that rob by night or by day and all other sorts of persons who offend us though we be assured that they shall be damned dying in this estate Observe these words quicumque malefactores whatsoever offenders or malefactors Whence it follows that though this assailant were our friend or our kinsman it were permitted to kill him though he should be damned Yea even a Monk might kill his Superiour and a Son his Father in a like case For that is the sense of these words quicumque malefactores possunt occidi any malefactors whatsoever may be killed And although this explication of it self be clear and natural enough yet for fear it should trouble any one and appear suspected because of the strange excesse which it contains Amicus hath made a particular conclusion of it and declares in formal terms that this liberty of killing any one whosoever it be that is ill-affected towards us or any thing that belongs to us is a right which suffers no limitation or exception whatsoever d Hoc jus tuendi propriam vitam non solum habet privata persona contra privatas sed etiam privata contra publicam
sua mente excludant ut suae libidini vacent sicut equus mulus quibus non intellectus habet potestatem daemonium super eos Tobiae c. 6. v. 17. When men proceed unto marriage saith the Angel Raphael talking with Tobit without thought of God to take their own pleasure and satisfie their passion as Horses and unreasonable beasts the Devil hath power over them If the Holy Scripture speaks after this manner of persons that enter into a married estate only to find their pleasure therein what will it say of those who having chased God and reason it self out of their minds by drunkennesse take that pleasure out of marriage and commit adultery or fornication and after being come to themselves instead of bewayling their excesse do approve it and entertain with pleasure the thoughts thereof which remain with them or the remembrance whereby they do call to mind that they have committed it ARTICLE IV. Of Gluttony The opinions of the Jesuits concerning the excesse of Eating and Drinking and the bad effects which arise therefrom THe first rule which the Divinity of the Jesuits doth prescribe in this matter is that it is lawful to eat and drink as much as one will and as one can without any necessity onely to satisfie the sensual appetite and tast Escobar puts this question a An comedere bibere usque ad satietatem absque necessitate ob solam voluptatem sit peccatum Escobar tract 2. Exam. 2. num 102. p. 304. whether it be lawful to eat and drink ones fill without necessity for pleasure onely He answers generally and without hesitation b Cum Sanctio respondeo negativè modò non obsit vatetudini I answer with Sanctius that it is no sin There is onely one condition to be observed provided that it do not prejudice ones health As if health were more dear unto them then conscience The reason is c Quia licitè potest appetitne naturalis suis actibus frui Ibid. Because the natural appetite may be suffered to move according to its own inclinations and enjoy the pleasure it finds therein That is to say that we may grant nature or to speak better to sensuality whatsoever it demands relating all to pleasure onely ob solam voluptatem and regulating onely our pleasure by our health and bodily advantage modo non obsit valetudini The Epicures may easily be content with this maxime d Licitè potest appetitus naturalis suis actibus foui and it expresses very well the foundation of their errors and all the disorder of their life The end which they propose to all their actions in general is that which this Jesuit approves in eating and drinking which is e Absque necessitate ob sâ—lam voluptatem modò non obsit valetudini to be carryed thereto without consideration of the necessity and for pleasure onely onely taking heed that health receive no prejudice and not to lose the greatest of all pleasures which is that of health and life for a lesser pleasure as that of the tast or any other particular sense But if it happen that one hurts his health by not being content to eat his fill usque ad satietatem to speak in the language of this Jesuit and that one takes in more then one can carry so that he be forced to vomit this will be no great harm according to him provided that his health be not thereby notably prejudiced f Quodnam peccatum gula est Ex genere suo ventale etiamst absque utilitate se quis cibo potu usque ad vomitum inguagitet nisi ex ejusmodi vomitione gravia saluti incommoda experiantur Ibid. n. 56. p. 298. What sort of sin is gluttony saith he and he answers that in it self it is but a venial sin though one without necessity fill himself in eating and drinking till he vomit if it be not so that he be notably incommodated in his health He adds in his morall Divinity g Moâ—tale non est imò quamvis advertenter id faciat ac evomat Escobar ibid. That there is no mortal sin therein no though one even commit this excesse with a design to commit it and to vomit And as for drinkings he gives there in the same liberty as in eating although he takes not his measures from the same rule The rule of temperance in eating according to this Jesuit is to eat as much as you will provided you do not vomit and hurt your health and the rule of temperance in drinking is according to the same to drink as much as you can without losing your judgement Whence it comes that according to this principle after he had made this doubt h Immoderato potu quis non quidem inebriatur sed aut dolore capitis laborat aut capite tentato à vino non sibi omnino constat attamen usus ration is perseverat qui se nimis potui indulgere cognoscit quodnam hoc peccatum Venialem intemperanaiam dixero Ibid. n. 62. p. 299. One drinks to excesse not so far as to be drunk but in such manner that his head akes or the Wine disturbes him in such sort that he knows not very well what he doth but yet he hath reason enough to know that he hath drunk too much What sort of sin is it He answers definitively I find no difficulty at all but that I may say it is but a venial Sin of intemperance And the reason is i Quia absolutè usum rationis non tollit he hath not wholy lost the use of reason The Heathen Philosophers have spoken with more moderation and they have been ashamed to give so great liberty unto drunkards But as the Jesuits make more account of the usage of reason then of the rules of vertue so also they respect health above reason and the interest of the body above that of the Soul They maintain that provided that reason continue found temperance cannot be hurt and they hold on the contrary that reason may be stifled as well as temperance to preserve health This is the opinion of Escobar when he demaunds k Licétue se ve alium pro salute corporis recuperanda inebriare cum aliud remedium non superest Probabiliter quis licere opinabitur v. c. si opus sit ad vomitum creandum Ibid. n. 63 whether it be lawful to make a man's self or an other drunk to recover the health of the body The answer is that one may probably believe that it is lawful when there is no other remedy As if for example it were necessary to vomit This is also Azors opinion l Si sumatur ut est potus aptus ad vomitionem sano quidem immodicus sed non male habenti peccatum non est Azor. Instit mor. l. 7. c. 22. p. 694. It is no sin saith he to take it a potion to make one drunk when it is taken because it is
formal intention to blaspheme God And a little after to assist them herein we think that it is in every respect to good purpose that the Confessor know from his mouth his intention and what moved him to blaspheme and if he answers that he was not touched with any despite against God but against Man or against Beast to whom they had a pique the Confessor shall not repute them to be Blasphemers nor destitute of Grace This man that blasphemeth against God and against Jesus Christ though he doth it through transport of choler against Men or against Beasts though he doth it without passion and in cold blood making use of these blasphemies in common discourse as ornaments of his language yet ought not according to Bauny to be treated in his confession as a blasphemer though the words and blasphemies he uttereth be contumelious opprobrious and dishonourable to the most venerable members of the Son of God if he have not truly had some indignation against God if he was not touched with some despite against God if he have not done it with a formal intent to dishonour God and the Confessor ought to referre himself in all this to what the blasphemer shall say after that he hath been informed of the matter from himself and hath knowledge of it from his own mouth If this be true as this Casuist assures us we must of necessity avouch that there are hardly any blaspemies or that to blaspheme we must have the heart of a Devil or a damned Spirit and hate God with a formal will to displease and dishonour him And when a person is so forlorn as to fall into this miserable estate if he neither resent nor acknowledge it as it easely befals him because of that blindness and hardness which is the ordinary consequence and punishment of these great crimes and pretends not to have this evil intention of dishonouring God by despite and hatred towards him which induceth him to blaspheme his ignorance and freedom from evil intention will be sufficient to every such person to exempt him from crime according to the Divinity of these Jesuits and Bauny will absolve him easily and not repute him for all this for a blasphemer nor as one destitute of grace He speaks after the same manner of cursings in the chap. 6. pag. 47. saying that to make cursing a mortal sin it ought to proceed of a will deliberately bent upon the ill which is desired to fall on others From the same principle treating of scandal in the chap. 46. pag. 719. and speaking of a woman who adorns her self proudly and who pranks and trims up her self to please her Husband or to observe the custom of the country he declares that allbeit the said woman knows well the evil effect which her diligence in adorning her self will work upon the bodyes and souls of those who behold her adorned with rich and precious garments yet she sins not in using them And to give a reason thereof he maintains it as a maxime and general rule that we are not responsible for the evil effects which are adherent to any action nisi fuerint intenti formaliter that is to say as he expounds himself unless we effectually seek will or procure them Filliutius speaking also of scandal proposes the same example and case and explicates it in the same manner e Sexto sâ— famina sciat se turpiter ab aliquo amart non peccat quoties se offert ejus conspectui modo non intendat hunc provocare ad turpem sui amorem Filliutius tom 2. tr 28 c. 10. num 232. pag 331. Though a woman saith he knows that a man loves her dishonestly she sins not how often soever she presents her self before him and in his view so that she have not an intention to stir up the dishonest love which he hath towards her Sanchez having also proposed before this same question namely f An saemina conspectui viri se offerens à quo se turpiter amari no vit peccat mortaliter peccato scandalt quando nullatenus cum ad sui amorem provocare intendit Sanchez op mor. lib. 1. cap 6. num 16. pag 19 whether a woman who presents her self to the view of a man whom she well knows doth love her dishonestly do commit a mortal sin of scandal when she hath no intention to stir him up to love her He reports the common opinion which condemns this action of mortal sin g Communiter cam Doctores peccart mortaliter censent quando nulla necessitate ducitur sed ut sâ—ae voluptati satisfaciat indifferenter hac illac discurrit Ibid. The common opinion saith he of the Doctors is that she sinneth mortally when without any necessity but onely for her own pleasure and satisfaction she gads indifferently into every place In the sequel he propounds the opinion of those who excuse this woman from mortal sin though she go abroad without necessity and know the evil which she must cause by her coming abroad h Aliis tamen placet hanc non peccare mortaliter quod ea occasio potius ex propria adamantis turpiter malitia sit accepta quam à muliere data quae jure suo ac libertate sibi concessa utitur Ibid. n. 17. There are others saith he who hold that she sins not mortally because he that loveth her dishonestly doth rather take this oocasion of offence and from his own malice then she gives it him by the use of her own right and liberty Finally after he hath considered these two opinions and the reasons on which they found them he concludes for this latter in favour of this woman whom he declares innocent i Et ideo quamvis priorem opinionem probabilem credam existimo veriorem esse hanc posteriorem ut non ob id teneatur faemina sua se egrediendi domo standi ad ostium domus vel fonestram discurrondi per civitatem libertate privare Ibid. And for that saith he though I also believe the first opinion to be probable but I esteem notwithstanding the latter to be more true which is that this woman is not obliged to deprive her self of this liberty which she hath of going abroad from her house to stand at her door or window or to walk in the Town He demands no other thing of her k ut nullatenus cum ad sui amorem provocare intendat but that she have no intention to cause him to sin who loves her And after this he justifies the offence which she gives him out of a frolick and without necessity and which she might easily avoid if she pleased So that although this woman knows that she is about to destroy a man by an action which is altogether free and which she may easily eschew she shall not be at all guilty for his death according to the Jesuits if she had not a formal design to kill him If any should
consulents consilium dare poteft non solum ex propria sed etiam ex opposita probabili aliorum sententia si forte illi favorabilior seu exoptatior sit Lavman supra pag. 6. Immo arbitror nihil à ratione alienum sore si Doctor consultus significet consulen i opinionem à quibusdam vir is doctis tanquam probabilem defendi quam proinde sequi ipsi liceat quam vis idem Docto ejusmodi seatentiam speculative falsam sibi certo persuadeat ut promde ipsemet in praxi eâ—m sequi non possit Ibid. that a Doctor may give counsel to him that advises with him not onely following his own opinion but following also the contrary which other Doctors hold probable if it be more favourable or more acceptable He adds that he believes that this Doctor should do nothing unreasonable in saying to him who consulteth him that the opinion according to which he hath answered his case is held by some learned persons and that by consequence he may follow it though he himself believes assuredly that it is false in the theory and that therefore he may not follow it in the practice And that we might better see his extravagance he saith himself in the same p. 7. q Etsi probabilis opinio sit medicamentum infirmo profuturum uon inde sequitur probabile esse quod liceat medico tale medicamentum dubium adhibere quin potius cum agatur de periculo corporis securior via eligenda est Quare Medici Chirurgâ— sequi debent sententias certas securas rejectis incertis dubi is Ibid. pag. 7. That though it were probable that a Medicine might help a sick person it would not follow thereupon that it were therefore probable that a Physitian might give him a dubious remedy but on the contrary because that the life of the body and the danger of losing it was in question he is obliged to choose the meaus which is more safe Whence he concludes that the Physitians and Chirurgions are obliged to follow certain and assured opinions and refuse them which are doubtful and uncertain And to take away from Physitians and Chirurgions all pretence and occasion of failing in a case so important he declares that r Quod si certa curatio non arcurrat â—enctur sectaâ—i ea quae probabilior a sudicat Ibid pag. 7. if they find not a remedy that is certain they are obliged to make use of those they judge most probable He saith shortly after the same thing of the secular Judges Å¿ Judex jadicare tenctur secundum sententâ—am quae inspectis allegat onibus probabilior jurique conformior est Ibid. p. 7. That a Judge is obliged to judge according to the opinion which after he hath considered all which is alledged and proved on one or other side seems to him more probable and more conformable to right In tempord things we cannot use too much precaution nor take too much security according to the Jesuits but in those which concern Heaven and Salvation it is not necessary to be so exact and to imploy so much care according to the same Jesuits When the health or life of the body is concerned or where there is danger of losing that they declare that we are obliged to choose the means that are more safe but when we deal about the Salvation or life of the soul and the danger of losing it they pretend that we may chuse the means and follow the opinion which is less secure To hold this discourse and to propose these maximes to the faithful as the rules of their conduct is it not to teach them openly to take less care of their souls then of their bodies of their Salvation than of their health and to preferre the World before God and life temporal before eternal Layman concludes also following these principles that a learned man may give to diverse persons counsels quite esntrary according to contrary probable opinions Which is very conformable to the prudence of the Jesuits though this carriage appear very abominable to the Divine t Os bilingue detestor Prov. 8. v 13. Pondus pou dus meâ—sura mensura utrum que abominabile est apud Deum Prov. c. 20. v 10. wisdom which condems a man with two tongues and him that makes use of two different weights and measures for temporal things and much more for those which respect Religion and eternal Salvation But that which be adds as a sequel to the same principles seems yet more strange that a Confessor may not onely follow the opinion of his penitent though it be contrary to his own but that he is obliged thereto though he believes the opinion of his penitent to be false and even not to be probable u Sâ—poenitens in praxi bona fide sâ—quâ—tur senteatiam quae à quibusdam Doctoribus tanquam probabilis tuta defenditur Confessarius vero sâ—u ordinarius sen delegatus eandem speculative improbabilem censeat nihil obstante sua persuasione tenetur absolutionem conferre lb dap 5. If a penitent saith he follow in simplicity in his conduct an opinion which some Dostors have maintained as probable and sure and on the contrary the Confessor whether he be ordinary or substitute thinks it improbable in the theory he is obliged to give him absolution notwithstanding his perswasion So the penitent shall be the arbiter and guide of the Confessor and not the Confessor of the penitent and whereas the penitent ought to submit to the opinion of the Confessor and thereunto is obliged by all sorts of reason and justice the Confessor shall be obliged to follow the opinion of the penitent though he judge that which is false and improbable x Quaeritur 4. an discipulus jure possit sui magistri praeceptoris sententiam sequi ita ut eam secutus probabiâ—… sentire videatur Respâ—ndeo posse Et idem dicendum est de co qui operam navat legendis authoribus ut doctrinam sibi comparet qui si quam legerit apud probatum quempiam Authorem sententiam sequatur probabiliter opinari merito câ—editur proinde tunc hic tum discipulus suum magistrum seentus à temeritatis crimine liber est Azor l. 2 c. 17. p 131. q 4. Azor draws almost the same consequences from the same principles and demands whether a Scholar may rely upon an opinion which he hath learned of his Tutor or Professor without troubling himself with others and whether he may follow and teach it in security of conscience He answers that he may and he saith the same thing of him that meets with any favourable opinion in an approved Author he maintaineth that both of them are exempt from rashness in following or in teaching that which they have learnt the one of his Tutor the other of the Casuist whom he hath happened upon Whencehe concludes that it is easie to finde a good guide and a good
distinction every Confessor may and ought to submit to the opinion of his penitent g Qâ—arta opinio est in universum asserentium integrum esse Presâ—ytero contra propriam poenitentis opinionem tenere Et bac est verior opinio quia cum poenitentis sententia â—it pâ—obabilis â—mprudenter ac temere Presbyter non agrt si eam contra propriam sequatur Ibid. The fourth opinion is of them saith he that hold absolutely and generally that it is lawful for a Confessor to follow the opinion of his penitent against that of his own and this opinion is more true because the advice of the penitent being probable the Confessor acts neither rashly nor imprudently in following his against his own proper sence To act in this manner is indeed to deny ones self but it is not to follow Jesus Christ as the Gospel hath ordained but rather to forsake him because Jesus Christ is truth and rightousness which he renounceth that renounceth his own light and his own conscience to follow the opinion and take the law of a man to whom he ought to give law according to the order of God and the Church From this opinion Azor infers that being a Confessor may always follow the judgement of his penitent against his own that he is obliged thereto when he hath heard his confession and finds not in it any other private indisposition h Ex quâ— efficitur ut tunc temporis Presbyter debeat paenitentem absolvere cum ejus confessionem audivit It follows saith he that a Confessor having heard the confession of his penitent is obliged to absolve him And although the Confessor believes absolutely that the penitent is obliged unto restitution and that for this reason he scruples to absolve him he pretends notwithstanding that if the penitent will not be brought to accord thereto the Confessor is obliged to believe him and that when even he cannot believe him he ceases not to be obliged to absolve him His reason is i Quia is qui poenitentium confessiones audit corum saluti prospicere debet sicut poenitens probabilem sen entiam secutus potest tuta conscientia rem alienam sibi retinere nec ad restituendum ulla lege compellitur sic etiam confessionis auditor Presbyter sure non cogitur poenitenti praecipere ut rem alteri restituat quam boua side possidet Ibid. because he who hears the confessions of penitents is obliged to provide for their Salvation and as the penitent grounded upon some probable reason may with a safe conscience detain another mans goods and is not obliged to restore them so the Priest who hath heard his confession is not bound by any law to order him to restore that which he is possessed of by a good title as he supposeth So that when all the Doctors and all the Saints condemn a man to restitution Azor believes that if he can but find one single Casuist that exempts him he may uphold himself by his advice and follow it with a safe conscience as a probable opinion without troubling himself about all the rest and consequently oblige his own judgement For he imagines that though a penitent declares that he hath anothers goods and that his Confessor with all the Doctors believe that he ought to make restitution thereof yet having one Casuist for him he is in a probable opinion upon which he may ground his conscience and so possessing in simplicity anothers goods he cannot be obliged to quit them This resolution is without doubt very Christian and very considerable but the reason he brings for it is no lesse k Quia is qui poenâ—tentium conserssiones au diâ— corum saluti pâ—aâ—…picâ—re debet Because saith he he who hears the confession of penitents is obliged to provide for their Salvation As if to incite a man to restore another mans goods were not to procure his Salvation or as if the actions of Justice and charity were not for Heaven but for Hell and damnation But the contradiction is yet more observable in the conceits of this Casuist For after he had opined in this manner in the affairs of conscience and eternal Salvation see how he speaks of Physick and of corporal health and life i Qâ—…ituritur modo an medicus coâ—…a propâ—tam opinionem tuta conscientra possit aliorum probabilem opinionem seoutuâ—… medicinam graviter aegrotanti praebere cum tamen ipse existimet eam esse 〈◊〉 Respondeo manifestum esse sure non posse medicum remedium aegroto adhibere quando dubitat an sit profuturum aut nociturum Ibid. p. 134. It is demanded saith he whether a Physitian may with a safe conscience following the probable opinion of other Physitians against his own proper judgement give to a man who is very sick a medicine which he believes may kill him He answers presently that it is a manifest thing that it is not lawful for a Physitian to give to his patient a remedy whereof he doubts whether it will save or kill him He believes then that it is not to be carefull enough of the health and life of the body to ground it upon uncertain though probable opinions and on the contrary that it is not to have care enough of the eternal Salvation of the soul not to be willing to establish it upon like opinions Who sees not hence clearly that the health of the body is to him more considerable and more precious then the salvation of the soul and that he understands well enough that it is a crime to jeopard temporal life contrary to a mans own conscience but it seems to him to be nothing to hazzard eternal life in that manner We have seen above Layman to maintain this rare Doctrine He avows also that m Deinde perspicunm ctiam est quando sunt opiniones probables sibi contrariae estque aliud remedium certum tunc nefas esse medico certo posthabito aegrotaitibus secundum opiniones probabiles mederi Ibid. it is evident when there happen two contrary opinions and there be also some other assared remedy it is not lawful for the Physitian to quit the assured remedy and to use the patient according to these probable opinions Which he proves by the rule of right which saith n Est enim regula juris certum tenendum dimittendum incertum that what is uncertain is to be quitted and what is certain retained He had said above in the same case o Quia in dabiis tutior certior pars est eligenda Ibid. that in doubtfull cases that is to be chosen which is more safe and certain He then admits this rule in temporal affairs and acknowledges it for indubitable and visible by the light of nature alone and they are onely Divine things and such as concern eternal Salvation in which he will not acknowledge them and in which he believes that it is lawful to act against common sence quitting the
though false continuing to be taught by others shall become common as well as the possession and in progresse of time this inveterate and publick errour will suffice to justifie and make valid all that they shall do in pursuance of this rule h Quia communis error ex probabili opinione ortus satis est ad gestorum per Sacerdotem valorem Sanchez op mor. l. 1. c. 9. n. 35. p. 32. That an errour which hath taken its original from a probable opinion and so is become common sufficeth to authorise and make valid that which a Priest doth After all this though their opinion were the falsest in the world and they were assured of it themselves though they have neither jurisdiction nor approbation nor priviledges they would not for all that cease to believe that they have liberty to confesse all sorts of persons because that in the most depraved consciences and the greatest sins that can be confessed unto them they may always find with ease some one which is venial for which there will be no need of approbation every Priest having power to absolve them and the absolution which he shall give for them will extend it self also to the others how great and enormous soever they may be All this is the argumentation of Sanchez which I do onely rehearse and deduce to make it the more clear After this we must acknowledge that the Jesuits are very sober and temperate in their learning that they use not all the power which their Divinity gives them and that they give great testimony of their religious modesty and of the esteem they have for the Pope and the Bishops when they present themselves before them to demand their priviledges or their approbations to take confessions it being in their power to attempt and do it themselves without speaking to them thereof at all And this licence belongs not onely unto them but unto all Priests whether they be Monks or not For all Priests as well as they having power to give absolution for venial sins may all also absolve of mortals which are confessed with venial and so the absolution which they shall give for the greatest crimes that are without approbation of the ordinaries shall be valid and they that have confessed them shall be thereof truly absolved and shall not be obliged to repeat their confessions Which is wholly to overturn the order of the Church and of the Sacrament of Penance to expose it to the most profane and sacrilegious hands of the most wicked Ministers and to abolish absolutely all the authority of the Bishops and of the Pope himself in what concerns the administration of this Sacrament From matters of Divinity Sanchez passeth to those of Physick and Law applying to Judges and Physitians that which we have now said of the probability of opinions He puts this question about Physick a Quando nullum remedium est certum sed variae inter medicos opiniones versantur circa medicamenta illo morbo applicando an liceat medicamento uti juxta opinionem quam medicus minus probabilem credit Ibid. n. 40. p. 33. When the opinions of Physitians are divided concerning the remedies which are to be applyed to a sick patient so that there be no certain one it is inquired whether a Physitian may make use of a Medicine according to a less probable opinion He proposeth first the opinion of some that say that a Physitian may in this case follow the less probable opinion But after he had reported the contrary opinion which holds that this is not lawful he saith b Existimo hanc sententiam veriorem esse non quad sit contra obilgationem justitiae ex medici officio debitam uti opinione illa probabili sed contra charitatem debitam proximo indigenti exhibendam quae pâ—tit ut certioâ—i medicam 〈◊〉 quo possumus el subveniamus Ibid. n. 41. that he esteemeth this last opinion more true not that the Physitian doth any injury or any thing contrary to the obligation of his duty in making use of this probable opinion but because he fails of the charity which is due unto his neighbour in his need which wills that we should succour him by the most safe way and remedy that is possible for us Which confirms what we said above that it must needs be according to his opinion that the health of the body should be a thing more precious then the Salvation of the soul and that he esteems the Physitians to be obliged to be more charitable and more circumspect then Priests and Pastors of Souls since he believes that Physitians ought to follow the more probable opinion and to give to the sick the most assured remedies they can by the Law of charity to our neighbour who demands it qui petit ut certiori medicamento quo possumus ei subveniamus Whereas he pretends that Confessors and Pastors of souls are not obliged at all thereto and that they may conduct men by an opinion which they believe less probable and lesse safe as hath been clearly proved by his own words As for Judges when the right of the parties is not clear and certain and when it happens that the Doctors are of different advice about the interpretation and sence of the Law the opinion of Sanchez is c Quando utraque opinio est aeque probabilis verius est integrum esse judici quam maluerit opinionem eligere secundùm cam judicare Ibid. n. 45. that when the one opinion is as probable as the other it is more apparent that it is in the power of the Judge to chuse which he pleaseth and to follow it in his judgement So that according to this Divinity the Judges shall have great power to oblige their friends since all affairs almost may easily be made probable in the manner they order and handlethem now a days and he adds that which follows upon his principle d Imo cessante scandalo nunc secùndum unam nunc secundùm aliam That he may if it give no scandal judge one while according to one opinion and an other while according to another opinion For if he may choose of two probable opinions that which he pleaseth it follows thence that he may follow sometimes the one and sometimes the other according as it shall please him Which is evidently to make Justice altogether arbitrary and to expose it to the avarice and passion of wicked Judges the advice which he gives to avoid scandal is onely to counsel them that they take heed that men do not perceive this unjust licence because they would thereby be scandalized fearing more that men should be offended then Justice and Truth He is more troubled to resolve what the Judge is to do when one of the two opinions is more probable then the other He cites some Authors who in this very case give to the Judge power to pronounce according to what he likes best and even to
it is not only lawfull to accept but also to offer them And one of the Casuists of the Society who taught publickly at Caen of late years after he had endeavoured to justifie this brutal madness by many reasons which we shall represent in their place concludes in this manner e Qui haec responsa non probaâ—t ignari sunt communis consuctudinis vitae Licet enim homini hac ratione honorem suum tutari These who approve not these answers know not the manner of living and the ordinary custom of those who are in the world For it is lawfull for a man to maintain his Honour by this way There is no custom more wicked nor more general amongst people of base condition than to swear blaspheme and to break out into curses and imprecations against cattel men and every thing that gives them trouble Bauny considering this cursed custom saith according to his ordinary lenity Bauny Sum. c. 6. p. 73. For my part I believe that it may be said with truth that it is their choler by which such people suffer themselves to be transported it is no fault neither mortal nor venial to curse Dogs Hawks and other such things as are without reason The abuse which Merchants ought most to fear and avoid in their Traffick and which yet is very common at this day is falshood and deceit whether it be in falsifying and altering Merchandizes or in selling them dearer than they are worth or selling them by false weights and false measures But Layman following this custom saith f Mercatores statim injustitiae damnari non possunt si merci substantiam alienam puta tricico secale vino aquam picem cerae admisceant modo inde emptoribus nullum damnum inferatur merces proportione pretii quo venditur satis idonea sit ad consuetum usum Layman l. 3. tr 4. c. 17. n. 15. That we must not alwayes condemn the injustice of the Merchants when they mingle in their Merchandizes things of different kinds as Rye amongst Wheat Water with Wine and Pitch amongst Wax provided that this do not damnifie them that buy it and that the Merchandize be good enough of the price it costs and proper enough for common usage And he confirms his opinion by that of Lessius and Lopez saying g Addit Lessius n. 83. cum Lopez loco citato si additio materiae secundum se deterioris eò artificio industria fiat ut merces non sit minus bona idonea ad usum quam sine tali admixtione posse tunc consueto pretio divendi luerum majus repoâ—tari quippe quod industriae esse censetur sine damno emptorum percipitur Ibid. that Lessius and Lopez assure us that if the mixture of the matter which of it self is of less value be done with such artifice and industry that the Merchandize is not less good nor proper for mans use than it would be without this mixture it may be sold at the ordinary price and take more than it is worth because this gain belongs to the address and industry of the Merchant and is no wrong to those that buy it The ordinary vice of women and principally of those of Quality is luxury and vanity They cannot have a fairer pretence for to nourish nor a better excuse to justifie themselves in the excess they commit therein and the scandals which fall out thereupon than to say that it is the custom and that they do nothing but what is commonly done in the World by women of their condition Bauny approves this reason and makes use of it in his Summe ch 46. p. 717 718. where he proposes this question If maids and women who exceed modesty and duty and as we may say necessity of decency in their habits because they seek out therein curiosities not suitable to their estates may be thought capable of absolution when they know that some take thence occasion of sinning He acknowledgeth that many condemn this insupportable vanity and maintain that maids and women who are so disposed and will so continue are uncapable of absolution but he declares against their judgement and concludes in these terms Nevertheless we must say 1. that the woman who trims and adorns her self to please her Husband ought not to be blamed though she doth it as he saith through vanity and curiosity and against modesty knowing well that some draw from thence occasion of sin He saith moreover that neither is she more to be blamed if she trim her self in this sort with scandal when she doth it to satisfie the custom of the Countrey and not to be singular unlike and inferiour to those of their own sex He would then that the pretence of pleasing her Husband and a disorderly and shamefull custom should give liberty to a woman to break out into all sorts of luxury and vanity without being blameable and that custom hath power to change the nature of things to cause that it shall be lawfull to transgress the bounds of modesty that vanity shall be no longer vanity that luxury shall not be longer luxury and that scandal shall be no longer scandal He continues speaking in this manner 2. I say though this said woman had knowledge of the bad effects which her diligence in trimming her self would cause in the body and soul of those who behold her adorned with rich and precious clothes nevertheless she sins not in making use thereof The reason is Because to prevent the offence of another this woman is not bound to deprive her self of what the Law of the Countrey and nature it self permits That is to say that as custom makes luxury and vanity lawfull for her so it makes scandal also lawfull for her and that the abuses which happens very frequently in this point by the corruption of the World are just and true Laws and proper to regulate all things in a Country I might speak here of Usury and Symony which are two vices so common at this day that the Jesuits cover them much easier than others because that custom hath made them publick But I referr these disorders to be represented in the places proper for these matters that I may avoid repetitions CHAP. III. Of the Occasions of Sin That the Jesuits retain men in them and that according to their maxims there can be no next occasions of Sin ONE of the most important and most necessary counsels which can be given to a person who would avoid sin is that he fly the occasions and if we observe it we shall find that the most ordinary cause why the most part of those who have some good desire and care for their salvation attain not to a true and solid conversion or fall back after a while is because they have not received this advice or have not been faithfull in the observation of it This is such that the Jesuits acknowledge well indeed the importance and necessity
away whom he hath already taken it will also give him a right to take her whom he hath not as yet There remains nothing more now to this sort of Divines but to pretend that it is lawfull for them to find out and direct themselves some Concubine to some distressed Whoremaster who cannot live without one or to exhort him that hath one not to forsake her for fear least he should be kill'd with melancholly Bauny is not more severe in this point than Sancius maintaining f Sequitur ex dictis absolvi posse soeminam quae domi suae virum excipit cum quo saepe peccat si cum non potest honeste inde ejicere cum causam aliquam habet cum retinendi dummodo firmiter proponat se cum eo ampâ—ius non peccaturam Bauny Theol. mor. part 1. tract 4. de poenit q. 14. p. 94. That absolution may be given a woman who entertains at her house a man with whom she offends frequently if she cannot handsomly send him away or if she have any reason to retain him provided she resolve firmly to sin no more with him The principle of this conclusion is that g Quia cum est justa causa expo nendi se peccati periculo poenitens nee occasionem vult expresse actu nec peccatum ex ea consequens sed commodum suum nempe privatiâ—nem damni in fama honore pecuniis quo bono non frueretur si occasionem perditam omitteret aut vitaret Ibid. in exposing her self for so just a reason to the danger of sinning she doth not directly nor expresly will the occasion of sin but the commodity that is to say the conservation of her repute of her honour or her wealth wherein she would have suffered loss if she had quitted or avoided the occasion of sin This is doubtless to have great care of her salvation and to love God very well above all things to expose her self voluntarily to evident danger of offending him for any the least temporal interest This reason of Bauny is the same which Sancius expresseth in other terms which testifies that these are not the opinions of some particular persons but that have overspread the Society it self and that they are fixed to its spirit and conduct But Bauny discovers another principle of this Doctrine which is that h Occasiones proximae sunt id solum quod ex se est peccatum mortale vel quod ex genere suo natura est tale ut frequenter homines similis condition is ad moâ—tale indâ—cat experimento constat talem effectum in illis habere ut plurimum Unde Confessarius contendere prudenter poâ—est nunquam aut raro tali occasione poenitentem usurum sine mortali culpa habita ratione tam loci quam temporis aliarum circumstantiarum quae ad peccatum inducunt Ibid. it is not a next occasion nor which ought to be avoided but only when it is mortal sin or when it is of such nature as causeth men fall commonly into sin so that the Confessor may judge prudently by his experience past and the present circumstances and dispositions that the person who addresses himself unto him can hardly at all or rarely be found in this occasion without offending God mortally And a little after he saith that i Deinde cum occasio peccandi non ex se nec omnibus siâ— mala sed buic tantum non potest in classem corum operum redigi quae ex natura sua à quocunque fiant semper sunt mala nunquam admittenda Ibid. if the occasion of sin be not evil in it self nor unto all sorts of persons but only for some one particular person it ought not be put into the number of actions that are evil in their own nature and forbidden unto all so that they should never be permitted to do them He will have it then that there is no next occasion of sin and that it is not to be avoided if it be not a mortal sin it self or at least if it be not evil in it self and for all sorts of persons and if it do not induce men naturally unto sin so that it makes them fall therein alwayes or almost alwayes when they meet therewith So that the places the treatments the company the converse which induce men to lewdness and debauchery cannot be next occasions to sin according to this Divinity and those who are in wicked places without giving themselves over unto evil shall not be engaged in the next occasions to sin and shall have done nothing which is forbidden them by the rules of purity and the Laws of God So that when he saith in the same place k Quo supposito dico primo regulariter absolvendum non esse qui est in occasione peccandi proxima that ordinarily they are not to be absolved who are in the next occasion of sin he would say nothing else but that he is not to be absolved who is actually in sin or in some practice which is commonly inseparable from it and from which he never parts without sin But he will not have this rule to be so general that it should have no exceptions whereof he makes out one in these terms l Dixi regulariter quia ex multorum sententia cuique licet se exponere periculo peccandi cum de aliena salute eaque promovenda agitur Ibid. Aiunt licere singulis lupanar ingredi ad odium peccati ingenerandum meretricibus etsi metus sit ac vero etiam verisimilitudo non parva eos peccaturos co quod male suo saepe sunt experti blandis muliercularum sermonibus ac illecebris flecti solitos ad libidinem Ibid. I say ordinarily because there are that hold that it is lawfull for all those who will endeavour after the salvation of souls to expose themselves unto the danger of sin And he alleadges for example those who would go into naughty places to treat debauched women that they might there possess them with some horrour of their sin pretending that this is lawfull unto all indifferently cuique licere licere singulis Albeit they expose themselves to evident danger and that there is all the probability in the world that they will sin themselves with those women having already many times proved by experience that they cannot defend themselves from the force of their temptations and that they suffer themselves to be drawn unto sin We find not in the Gospel this marvellous charity which causeth us to expose our salvation for that of anothers and which induces us to be damned with them The Apostles and Martyrs were ignorant thereof having given the life of their bodies to save men but not that 〈◊〉 their souls because they had learned of Jesus Christ that it was to no purpose to gain the whole World to loose a mans soul and that it is a ridiculous way to go about to withdraw debauched persons from
sin by committing sin with them Bauny speaks of the same point in French as in Latine and he is firm in the same opinions because they could not be more enlarged For in his Summe c. 46. p. 711. after he had demanded If they who in their Traffick Commerce discourse resorts were obliged to see to speak and treat with Maids and Women whose sight and treatments do cause them frequently to fall into sin were capable in this perpetual danger of being in grace and receiving the Sacrament He answers with Baia they may so that the cause which draws and induces them at such times into evil be not of it self a mortal sin non est de se peccatum mortiferum and therefore cannot be held to be of the quality of a next occasion disposing unto evil such as the penitent ought then necessarily avoid to possesse and receive grace in the Sacrament It must be considered that it is presupposed that the danger is perpetual that it causes often to fall into sin that this sin is of that sort which is committed by men with maids and women and yet Bauny who himself asserts and advances these things maintains at the same time that we are not to hold a danger of this nature to be in the quality of a next occasion disposing unto evil This same F. in the 717. page demands What must be done with Men and Maid-servants Cousins of both sexes Masters and their Maid-servants who mutually draw and assist one another in sin or take from the house wherein they are motives thereunto from the opportunities they have therein To which he answers that if they offend but rarely together as once or twice in a month they may be absolved It were easie to relate many like cases which the Jesuits resolve in the same manner but I omit them for fear of being too long to come to a point more important which discovers the principles whereupon they found their answers and the conditions they require unto a next occasion of sin See here the Principles which Bauny relates in this manner 1. The occasion is the next when it is of it self of a vicious nature as are all mortal sins In his Summe 46. ch 709. p. It is not such saith Baia whom Bauny alledges for his warrant quando non est de se peccatum mortiferum when it is not of it self a mortal sin p. 711. 2. In the second place though a thing be evil and vicious in it self and serve for a next and as it were certain occasion of sin yet according to Bauny it is not such in effect that is to say it is not the next occasion to sin when it is not sought and the will is not bent thereupon 710. p. Which he expounds more clearly when he saith a little after that albeit the precept of flying the occasions of sin is negative and that by consequence it obligeth alwayes this is only with this condition not to affect and seek humerously and without necessity that which induces unto sin 712. p. 3. In the third place he maintains that a thing is no next occasion to sin unto a man if it be not so forcible that it ravisheth him in some sort and causeth him almost every time it presents it self to fall into sin si non adsit assiduit as pecoandi Which Bauny translates and explicates in this manner If the said occasion do not force as I may say the sinner to fall at every season alwayes and at all times 711. p. 4. In the fourth place although a person be engaged in some place company exercise which causeth him often to offend God they say he is not for that obliged to leave it if he be retained by any temporal consideration as that of wealth of honour and even of pleasure it self si adsit aliqua notabilis causa non se separandi saith Baia and which Bauny translates better than he thought for when he rendred it in these terms Provided he have some specious cause which obligeth him to continue in the said occasion 710. p. It matters not whether this cause be just or not before God so it be specious before men For speaking of this specious cause which may oblige men to continue in the nearest and as it were certain occasions of offending God he expounds it thus As when they cannot dispence therewith without giving the world matter to talk of â—or that is would be an inconvenience to them 712. p. 5. In the fifth place they assure us that a man may with a safe conscience abide in the most certain most ordinary and most violent occasions of sin when any temporal interest or commodity engageth him therein provided he form within himself a resolution not to offend God in that estate Dummodo firmiter proponat non peccare p. 712. provided that he is displeased with what is past and purposes not to fall thereinto again for the future 715. p. though he have often made the like resolutions and protestations which have been vain and without effect quandocunque nulla notetur emendatio as Sancius speaks in Bauny p. 717. and though even in deed there be no appearance that he who made these promises and these resolutions will do what he promises and hold to what he resolves as Bauny saith after Diana p. 716. and though many times it may be presumed that such resolutions come no farther than from the lip outward as saith the same Bauny 717. p. Sancius agrees very well with Bauny in all these points or rather Bauny with Sancius from whom he seems to have taken the greatest part of what he hath said about these next occasions of sin as having found none more large upon this matter as appears clear enough in what we have related of this matter from him Layman also establisheth the same principles and requires the same conditions in the occasions of sin And after he hath declared that by the command of God we are obliged to fly the next occasions he adjoyns these restrictions and exceptions m Excipe nisi proximum periculum seu occasio mortaliter peccandi sine gravi incommodo corporis famae aut fortunarum tolli non possit tune consilium quidem est minorem illam jacturam majori bono securitatu animae posthabere sed nec praeceptum Layman l. 5. tract 6. cap. 4. num 9. Vnless saith he the evident danger and next occasion of sinning mortally cannot be removed without some notable damage to body goods or reputation For in this case God counsels indeed to suffer this loss to secure the salvation of our souls but he commands it not Whence he draws this conclusion for the resolving of this very case which F. Bauny had already propounded as above n Quare absolvendi sunt qui officio negoliatione dome in qua peccandi periculum propinque imminet discedere nolunt quia sine maxima dissicultate non possunt quia occasio peccandi in se
but that the help which sinners have one of another in the execution of their wicked designs is one of the outward principles of sin There are few crimes which are committed without the assistance of others and which can proceed without a Servant a Friend a Merchant or some person who favours and furnisheth with money for their execution Though the Holy Scriptures and all the most common rules of Morality do condemn all these voluntary instruments of sin the Divinity of the Jesuits nevertheless forbears not to excuse them I will only rehearse some of the principal decisions of Tambourin because he is the last Author that I know of who hath written on this and who hath taken care to collect almost all that is corrupt in their Morality 1. For Servants he excuseth those of Usurers Dishonest and Duellists who serve them in the execution of their sins a Si jussu heri ulurarti pecuniam numeret deferat recipiat reserat in libros si ejusdem jussu quem scit ire ad adulterandum sternat â—quum ipsum mere comitetur mereque expectet ante sores sternat lictum cibos condiat ministretque contubinae candemque mere ossociet ducendo ad locum ubi dominus peccaturus est januamque aperiat eidem ingressarae si honoret suam beram meretâ—icem si deserat scripta internâ—ntia solius urbanitatis plena si deferat munuscula esculenta praestetque alia officia quae alius famulus aeque praestaret num 18. Non ex sola famulatus ratione sed metu detrimenti V. G. torvis aspiciatur oculis demo expellatur excusatur si referat adulterae vel inimico tali hora ad domum beri vel ad dictum locum accedat si jussu heri insequatur puellam visurus vel requisiturus ubi ea habitet si jussu ejusdem non aperiat modo januam sed doceat ubi herus sit si dominum adjuvet ad ascendendum per fenestram quo ingrediatur in locum ubi peccaturus sit num 19. If a Servant saith he by the command of his Master who is an Vsurer tells the money carries it receives it Books it if by command of his Master whom he knows to be going to commit adultery he saddles his horse attends at the gate makes the bed makes ready meat serves at the table of his Whore accompanies her and conducts her to the place where his Master is to commit this sin if he opens her the door if he reverence this prostitute if he carry Lettors and Messages which contain Civilities only if he barry Presents to her with a Collation and perform all other services which a Servant commonly doth for his Master he is not only to be excused because of his servile condition but also because of the fear of loss if for example he fear that his Master will be angry or turn him out of his house He is to be excused if he go to tell the woman with whom his Master goes to commit adultery that he will be found at home at sush an hour or to his Masters enemy that at such an hour he shall find him at such a place If by the command of his Master he follows a Damsel to see or enquire where she lives if by his command he not only open the door but shew her where his Master is if he aid his Master to get up by the window to enter into the place where he is to commit that sin Wherefore takes he such pains to particularize such infamous actions if it be not for fear least a Servant should make any scruple upon any one of these circumstances and that the Master not being well served should fall short of executing his design or for fear this poor Servant should put himself by his scruple in danger of being frown'd upon by his Master for having hindred him from committing this crime But if you be not satisfied with the excuse of this Servant this Father will furnish him with another founded on the direction of his intention which may serve him as he saith himself b Ratiod scendendi multos à peccato saltem mortisero modo ut in casu proponitur non placeat eis peccatum faciant obsequia praedicta oò aliquem bonum suem puta co quod exhibeant illa officii sui causa Tambur l. 5. Decal cap. 1. sect 4. n. 30. to discharge many persons of sin at least of mortal sin which is that in the cases propounded the servant pleaseth not himself in the sin of his Master and that he do him the services whereof we have spoken for some good end as for the just reward which he expects It is not very necessary to advertise fervants to have this good intention and if it be capable to excuse them it is true that they need fear nothing on this part if this answer will serve them that their Masters sins please them not but so far as they receive some profit and benefit thereby But what this Father makes use of to excuse a servant he also allowes as lawful to a friend c Si amicus meuo vetit ut ego seram munuscula simlia tarpis sciâ—icet amoris incit mâ—nta quae ipse mittit ad suam concubinam possum sine peccato deferre ..... si tibi magni sit ejusmodi amicitia ac vere timeas amittere quiatuno notabilis momenti justus metus accedit Ibid. n. 18 19 20. If my friend saith he will have me carry presents to be given on the account of dishonest Love unto his Concubine to whom he sends them I may carry them without sin if I have an esteem for the love of this man and that I would not lose it because in this case I have a just cause of fearing a confiderable losse The friendship of an Adulterer is very considerable in the judgement of this Divine and this Jesuit and preferrable to that of God himself being he wills that against the command of God a friend may contribute to his crime for fear onely of putting himself in danger of losing his favours he may by the same motive carry on the behalf of this friend presents to a Murderer or to an Impostor to stir them up by false witnesses to dishonour or kill whom he pleaseth and it will not be easie according to this detestable Doctrine to condemn him that gives his friend a Sword to kill himself if he intreat him if it be not that perhaps the life of the Body is more precious and more considerable than that of the Soul and that it is more lawful to co-operate to this then to that or to contribute to an adulterie then to an homicide As for the Merchants they may according to this Author co-operate as much as their vocation or rather their Lust and Interest will permit them to the sins of Idolatry Whoredom unlawful gains and of all sorts of debaucherie d Popest quis vendere agnun
assumpta admittere sicut non solum potest assumere naturam omni sensu externo privatam sed etiam talem sensuum privationem in assumpta jam natura admittere Ibid. n. 130. That there is nothing this way that can hinder the Word from taking the nature of a fool or after he hath taken our nature to suffer it to fall into folly as he cannot only take a nature deprived of all outward senses but also suffer it to fall into this privation after he hath assumed it He is not content only to say that the eternal Word might suffer under folly but he saith also that he might have assumed it voluntarily as he assumed humane nature That is that this proposition the impiety and blasphemy whereof is horrible only to be thought might have been true God is a fool and that with a voluntary folly which is accounted the worst of all He ought to have considered that folly is a disorder of the body and the Soul and of the highest part of the Soul which is Reason and that all disorder is inconsistent with the Wisdom of God as well as sin is inconsistent with it because it is a voluntary disorder and a true folly according to Scripture and if the reason of Jesus Christ had been disorderly it is manifest that his Will might have been so too and that as his Will could not be so by sin which is the folly of the Will neither could his reason be so by folly which is as we may say the sin of the Understanding as some Philosophers esteem Errour is yet a greater evil than folly because folly takes away reason but errour is the cause it is ill used Now it were better to be wholly deprived of any thing then to abuse it as it were better not to have wit then to abuse it in deceiving not to have strength then to abuse it in committing violences and murthers and yet Amicus forbears not to maintain with others that Jesus Christ was capable of erring and that he might erre in deed For the explication of this opinion he distinguisheth two sorts of errours whereof one respects the things we are obliged to know and which he calls Error pravae dispositionis because it includes a wicked disposition from whence it proceeds as from its cause the other respects such things as we are not obliged to know which consists in a simple privation of knowledge error simplicis negationis He saith 2 De secunda non est dubium quin potuerit esse in Christo Nam sicut potuit Verbum assumere naturam irrationalem incapacem omnis scientiae ita rationalem omni scientia spoliatam tam actuali quam habituali Amicus tom 6. disp 24. sect 4 n. 114. p. 359. of this second sort of error that there is no doubt but it might be in Jesus Christ For as the Word might have taken the nature of a beast incapable of all sort of rational wisdom and knowledge so it might in like manner have taken a reasonable nature destitute of all wisdom and knowledge as well actual as habitual He is not content only to maintain a proposition so strange and impious but he would also have it pass as undubitable as if it were not lawful only to doubt of it non est dubium But behold his blindness we need only consider what he saith of the other species of errour which consists in being ignorant of that which is our duty or to have an apprehension of it contrary unto truth He dares not absolutely affirm that this sort of errour might have been in Jesus Christ he contents himself to relate the opinion of Vasquez and some others 3 Tantum de prima est controversia Prima sententia affirmans potuisse de potentia absoluta talem errorem esse in Christo est Vasquez disput 60. c. Ibid. Who hold saith he that this sort of errour might have been absolutely in Jesus Christ and this opinion is that of Vasquez Certainly he doth great wrong to doubt of this sort of errour after he had said that we may not doubt of the other For if it be certain as he pretends that the eternal Word might have taken a reasonable nature destitute of all kind of knowledge and wisdom actual and habitual it follows manifestly that he might have taken it destitute of all that knowledge of things which every reasonable nature is obliged to know as of the knowledge of God and of the first principles of Reason since this sort of errour is necessarily contained in the other Which follows also clearly from the other opinion of the same Jesuit that Jesus Christ might have taken on him the nature of a fool For folly is not only an ignorance of principal duties but of all truths also according to the very definition of the Philosophers who say that it is a general blindness of mind in all things mentis ad omnia caecitas So that if Jesus Christ might have been a fool in humane nature he might have been generally ignorant of all the duties of humane and reasonable Nature and of all the principles of Reason And Amicus shews himself as weak a Logician as Christian in doubting of this last Article after he had said that we might not doubt of that general Maxime whereunto it is inseparably and visibly annexed One of the Reasons of the Jesuits who teach that Jesus Christ was capable of that errour which hath respect unto his duty which they call an Errour of a depraved disposition error pravae dispositionis and which is not only a simple ignorance and simple privation of light but an opposition to the truth and an apprehension contrary to its Rules and Laws is That Jesus Christ might according to them have taken the nature of an Ass as they express it in these very words 1 Foruit Verbum assumere stoliditatem naturae asininae ergo errorem naturae humanae Amicus ib. n. 116. The Word might have taken upon him the sottish and blackish disposition of the nature of an Ass and by consequent he might have taken the errour of humane nature Which can serve for no other thing then to make this opinion more incredible whether we regard the impiety of these strange words Potuit Verbum assumere stoliditatem naturae asininae or we regard the consequence which is ridiculous Ergo errorem naturae humanae For the blockish disposition of an Ass is not an ignorance of his duty because it hinders not an Ass to know and perceive all that which he ought to know and perceive according to his nature and much less is it an apprehension opposed unto truth which the nature of an Ass is uncapable to know And so though it were true that Jesus Christ might have been united to the nature of an Ass it would not have followed that he might have been united to a reasonable nature ingaged in errour and in errour contrary
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
Cum inter Dectores non conveniat quando peccet mortaliter qui non facit elecmosynam non facile condemnandi sunt divites qui non faclunt Sa verb. Elcemos n. 2. pag. 201. The Doctors being not agreed when we sin mortally in not doing alms we must not easily condemn the rich who do them not at all And a little after citing Tolet in the place before alledged with some other Casuists and reporting that Judgment he concludes thus 3 Extra extremam necessitatem eleemosynam sub mortali peccato non esse praeceptam dicunt Ibid. They say that unless in case of extream necessity alms is not commanded under mortal sin That is to say that unless we see some person that hath his Soul in a manner hanging on his lips or who is in evident danger of death it is no great sin for him that is able to assist him to abandon him This is to speak properly to discharge men from the obligation of giving alms these extream necessities never falling out in a manner and there being few persons who see any such in many years or not at all in their whole lives and when such an one by great accident is presented we are not obliged any farther to provide for them according to these Doctors if we have not wealth to spare and riches that are superfluous and there being hardly any person who believes he hath such or who indeed hath such so much doth Covetousness Luxury House-keeping rack men at this day and makes all men in a manner necessitous so the obligation of giving alms shall be abolished and there shall hardly be any person found who shall think himself obliged to assist his neighbour to what necessity soever he be reduced But the words of Tolet are considerable and discover also with advantage the solidity of this Doctrine 4 Istam teneo propter communem Doctorum sententiam nec audeo obligare sub mortall quos tot tanti Doctores excusant I am saith he of this opinion because it is the common judgment of the Doctors and I dare not engage him in mortal sin whom so many great Doctors excuse He calls the Casuists of these last times great Doctors and he dares not depart from their opinion though he avows after that they are themselves departed from that of the holy Fathers who were the Doctors and Masters of the Church before them which hath proposed them as such to all the faithful of latter Ages and by much stronger reason to Priests and Divines who ought to be the most perfect amongst the faithful For he acknowledges that although the Scholasticks discharge the rich from the obligation they have to give alms of that which they have superfluous the holy Fathers for all that and the common judgment of Antiquity obligeth them thereunto 5 Etsi Scholasticorum communis sententia eos excuser tamen Doctores Sancti eos damnant ita ut profecto sit sententia probabilis illos obligari sub praecepto Tolet. l. 8. c. 35. n. 3. pag. 1242. Though the common opinion of the School-men excuse them saith he yet the holy Doctors condemn them So that it is very probable that they are obliged thereunto by Precept He is not content to say in general that this is the Judgment of the holy Fathers but he cites many passages of S. Ambrose S. Jerom S. Austin S. Basil and of S. Chrysostom who place in the rank of those who rob or detain unjustly the goods of others all them who give not to the poor what remains of their wealth after they have provided for their just and true necessities You see saith he after he had named all these Fathers 6 Vides tot Sanctos damnare superflui retentionem multùm ergo timendum est Ibid. so many of the Saints who condemn them that do not their alms of what they have of superfluity There is therefore herein much cause to fear He might have added to the Authority of these Fathers that are the most illustrious and the most famous of the Church that of all the rest for they all agree in this Point so that there is not one found to say the contrary So that if there be one Point of Doctrine established on the ancient and universal Tradition of the Church this is as clearly as any other and if that which is established upon this Tradition ought to pass for indubitable amongst Catholick Divines and amongst all the Faithful as it hath always certainly been until this present we cannot call this Doctrine into doubt without wounding the Authority of the Church and the foundations of the Faith and to say it is probable as Tolet saith Profecto sententia probablis est is not of much â—atter effect than to say that it is false because this is to hold always for doubtful the ancient and universal Tradition of the Church and to give men liberty to decide Points of Divinity and to expound Scripture against the consent of the Fathers which is expresly forbidden by the Council of Trent Another that hath not read the Fathers might be excused by his ignorance But this excuse hath no place in Tolet who forsakes them after he had cited them and which is yet more unsupportable and more injurious to these great Saints he renounces their Judgment after he had acknowledged it to follow that of the new Divines of our times 1 Et nisi esset tam unanimis Scholasticorum sentâ—ntia qua possunt exculari modo aliquo tales homines absque dubio damnanda esset talis retentio Ibid. If the School-men saith he did not agree so unanimouslâ— as they do in this very Judgment by which we may in some sort excuse these persens who give not in alms what they have of superfluity we must without doubt have condemned this sparingness so as the holy Fathers condemn it as he saith himself Vides tot Sanctos damnare superflui retentionem He pretends then that the holy Fathers on one side condemn those who give not in alms what they have of superfluous and on the other hand the new Scholasticks excuse them we must hold to the Judgment of these later if we will believe this Jesuit and follow his Example But if it be lawful in this manner to oppose the new Divines to the ancient Tradition in this Article and in this opposition to prefer the Judgment of the Casuists before that of the holy Fathers instead of judging and correcting the Moderns by the Tradition of Antiquity it will be lawful to do the same thing in all other Points which concern Manners or Religion and so there shall be nothing fixed in the Doctrine of the Church and Antiquity shall be no more a mark of Truth and Faith but Novelty shall be more considerable though until this present it hath passed for a Vice and a mark of Errour But for all that he hath over-reached in saying that this new Opinion
Maxims to those of the Apostle and the Gospel The horrour which he is constrained to receive hereof himself or rather the fear which he hath to make himself odious and unsufferable in the society of men is the cause that he dares not absolutely counsel men to practise this and he himself alledges inconveniencies which may render it difficult or dangerous For after that he had said that it is lawful to kill him who is become an accuser of us of pretended or even of true crimes but secret and concealed he adds 2 Sed haec sententis etsi fortasse speculative probabilis videri queat non ramen in praxi admittenda ob incommoda quae ex ea sequi possunt Facile enim bomines sibi persuadent se per calumniam accusari non esse effugium nisi morte accusatoris sicque multae caedes injustae patrarentur Denique talis in Republica benâ— constitute ut homicida pâ—ecteretur Dub. 8. num 47. pag 85. But this opinion also though it may be probable in the Theory yet for all that is not to be admitted in the practice because of the inconveniencies which may arise thereupon For men easily perswade themselves that they are scandalized when they are accused and that they have no other way to avoid the calumny than by killing him who accuseth them And by this means there would be a multitude of unjust murders committed Finally they who should practise this opinion in a Common-wealth well constituted would be punished as Murderers And below num 55. having said that it is a wholesom advice rather to endanger our own life than to kill him that assaults us he supports his advice with this reason 3 Quia periculum est ne ira aut odium se admisceant neve modum excedamus sic dum volumus servare vitam corporis vitam perdamus animae num 55. Because herein there is danger lest choler or hatred mingle it self therewith or that we should be transported with some excess and so thinking to preserve the life of our body we should lose that of our Soul And in Chap. 12. num 78. after he hath set down of himself a Proposition of which he declares himself to be the first Author saying that he had not found it in any that had written before him which is that it is lawful to kill him who hath spoken any contemptuous word unto us or who hath made only some sign thereof he brings in this restriction 4 Cavenda tameâ— vindictae libido Dub. 12. num 78. Yet he ought notwithstanding avoid herein the desire of revenge And though afterwards num 80. having proved by three different reasons that an honourable person who hath received a box on the ear may pursue him who gave it him and kill him though he were withdrawn speaking always of this as of an opinion he holds for true in it self or at least probable because of the reasons upon which he hath grounded it yet he seeks to sweeten a little the rigour of it concluding in these terms 5 Ob has rationes haec sententia est speculative probabilis tamen in praxi non videtur facile permittenda For these reasons this opinion is probable in the Theory yet for all that it ought not as it seems be easily permitted in the practice 6 Primum ob periculum odii vindictae excessus num 80. First because of the peril there is therein lest hatred and revenge should transport unto some excess This judicious Jesuit requires some prudent man to the practice of this so reasonable and humane a Doctrine he would have one kill in cold blood after he had well thought of it without heat or precipitation and that having well weighed what he goes about and being prepared for it as an action of importance he should follow this rare Doctrine with so great simplicity that he should thrust the sword into his brothers breast and presently withdraw it again without any kind of emotion that he should shed his blood and wash his hands in it as soberly as if it were in water It is therefore clear enough that all these precautions and apparent limitations proceed only from the apprehension he hath that this Doctrine which he believes to be good might become odious by the imprudence and evil conduct of those who know not rightly to make use of it He distrusts not the truth of this opinion since he saith that it is probable in the Theory but doubts of the capacity of many persons for executing it as he desires because of the danger that is therein lest hatred or revenge should transport them unto some excess He produces also some other reasons to the same purpose which are all taken from considerations purely humane and politick As when after he had given a liberty to kill upon an injury or word spoken in drollery he adds 1 Verum haec sententia non est sequendâ— Satis enim esse debet in Republics ut injuriae verbales verbis repelli legitima vindicta comprimi castigari possint num 78. That for all that we ought not to follow this opinion because in a Common-wealth we ought to content our selves with the power of repelling injuries by words which consist only in words and to repress and chastise them by a lawful and reasonable punishment And a little after num 82. to prevent the reproach which might be cast upon him for saying we might make use of all sorts of means which we should judge necessary to kill an accuser who charged us with false crimes or would discover and publish secret ones though true he endeavours to cover this pernicious Maxime by saying 2 Verum haec quoque sententia mihi in praxi non probatur quia multis caedibus occultis cum magna Relp perturbatione praeberet occafionem In jure enim defensionis semper confiderandum est ne ejus usus in perniciem Reip. vergat Tune enim non est permittendus num 82. Haec sententia est speculative probabilis For all that neither do I approve this opinion in the practice And his reason is because it would make way for many secret murders not without great trouble and disorder to the Common-wealth For we ought always in making use of the right we have to defend our selves take heed we do nothing which might tend to the prejudice of the Common-wealth For in this case it must not be used So he always maintains his opinion which teacheth to kill to be at least probable he also vindicates the licence he gives to kill to be a true and lawful right though he dares not advise us to use it at all times because of the consequences thereof Because as he now said 3 In jure enim desensionis semper considerandum est ne usus ejus in perniciem Reip. vergat Tunc enim non est permittendus We must always beware that
of a Thief 5 Juxta hanc doctrinam dicendum est fas esse furi qui ad furandum est ingressus interficere cum qui taliâ—de causa vult talem surem interficere quando aliter non potest evadere cam mortem Ibid. pag. 1766. num 2. According to this Doctrine we must say that a Thief being entred into a house to steal may in conscience kill him that would kill him for his Theft if he cannot otherwise escape death We must no more be so much astonished that they assure us that he from whom one would take life honour or goods may kill in his own defence and prevent the Assailant since they pretend that he who unjustly invadeth the honour or goods of another hath the same right and power He also maintains that in these occurrents wherein it is lawful to kill according to him it is lawful to defire it to lay a design for it and to do all we can to effect it See his words 1 Dicendum posse aggressum Intendere mortem aggressoris petendo ictu cor aut jugulum aggressoris animo cum prosternendi ac necandi quando videt sibl ita esse necessarium ad tute evadendum manus ejus Ib. disp 11. num 4. pag. 1755. We must say that he who is assaulted may form a design to kill the Assailant and direct his blow at his heart or throat that he may overthrow and killhim when he sees that it is necessary for him that so he may certainly escape out of his hands Tambourin permits us to have this determinate will of killing in our own defence all sorts of persons 2 Ut vitam meam defendam non vero ut vindictam sumam communis est doctrina posse à me occidi cum qui me injuste aggreditur etiam intendendo ejus mortem ut medium meae vitae licet is sit meus pater filius frater dominus conjux Sacerdos Religiosus sine periculo excommunicationis vel irregularitatis Hurtado Dicastillus alii apud Dianam Tambur lib. 6. Decal c. 1. sect 1. n. 1. It is saith he the common Doctrine without doubt amongst the Jesuits that to defend my life but not to revenge my self I may kill him who assaults me unjustly even with an intention to kill him his death being as a means to save my life yea though it were my Father Son Brother Master Wife a Priest or Monk without incurring any peril of Excommunication or irregularity He might have said moreover and added with merit and even with pretension to gain an Indulgence by this man-slaughter since according to his Brethren an action of this nature is good and honest and by consequence a matter capable of merit and indulgence Amicus saith in like manner 3 Infertur posse invasum in defensionem suae vitae intendere non quidem ut sinem sed ut medium necessarium mortem invadentis Amicus de just jur disp 36. num 78. pag. 538. That he who is assaulted may endeavour to kill the Assailant looking on his death not as his end but as a means to preserve his own life Dicastillus adds that this design of killing is honest 4 Asserendum est tanquam verissimum sicut honestum est in executione repellere aggressorem illum occidendo pari ratione honestum est ditecte illum velle intendere occidere ad repellendum illum conservandam proptiam vitam Dicastillus lib. 2. tr 1. disp 10. dub 4. num 41. We must say and maintain it as most true saith this Father that as it is an honest thing to repel him who assaults us by killing him so likewise it is honest directly to desire to kill him and to intend it for repelling him and defending our own life This is not simply to tolerate excuse or justifie murder this is highly to praise it and to stir up all people to commit it and to give themselves voluntarily to the practice of it as a good action to say as this Jesuit doth that the designment as well as the execution of it is commendable and honourable But if you have given occasion to this unjust Aggressor to invade you may you kill him You may according to the same Dicastillus 5 Non peccat peccato homicidil invalus qui occidir injustum invasorem etiamsi invasus dederit câ—usam invasionis Ibid. dub 5. num 25. He commits not a sin of man-slaughter who kills him that invades him unjustly though he gave him occasion to assault him That is to say that he who by any offence or injury done against a person hath given him occasion to assault him becomes just by taking up arms to maintain his injustice and may justly kill after he hath unjustly offended And herein he shall do also if you will believe this Doctor an honourable and commendable action Filliutius assures us also 6 in casu quo licet occidere invasorem etiam licitum est intendere ejus mortem tanquam medium necessarium ad sui defensionem Filliutius Moral qq tom 2. tr 29. cap. 3. num 37. pag. 358. That in occurrences wherein it is lawful to kill the Invader it is also lawful to desire his death as a means necessary for our defence Molina goes yet farther and saith that though in killing him who assaults unjustly we see that he will dye in an estate of eternal damnation yet nevertheless we may kill him without offending against that Charity which we owe unto our Neighbour 7 Tunc lege charitatis non est necesse praeponere viram illiuâ— spiritualem nostrae propriae corporali Imo vero nec honoriaut bonis externis quae ille velit injuste à nobis auferre Molina de just jure tr 3. disp 13. pag. 1751. Because in this case Charity obligeth not to prefer this mans spiritual before our own corporal life nor before our honour it self or our temporal goods which he would unjustly bereave us of That is to say that without violating the Laws of Charity and much less of Justice we may kill the body and soul of an enemy or thief and send him to Hell rather than suffer any loss in goods or honour or hazard our lives and if Charity should require any other thing of us in these occurrences its yoke would be according to this Jesuit unsupportable unreasonable and contrary to publick good and humane Society 1 Irrationabile autem importabile bonoque communi contrarium esset jugum praeceptum quo praeciptremur pati jâ—cturam injustam vitae bonorum omnium nostrorum externorum ne nos nostraque cum moderamine inculpatae tutelae defendendo interficeremus injuste aggressorem qui sua nequitia à tanta injustitia non vult desistere aut nicelle illa sua nequitia defistere â—olendo interitum incurrat aeternum Ibid. Otherwise saith he this would be a yoke and command unreasonable unsupportable and
5. tract 6. cap. 4. num 9. Vnless it be so that this peril and next occasion of sinning mortally cannot be removed without undergoing some notable incommodity in body reputation or goods For in this case there is an advice but no command to forgo the lesser for the greater good and to make less account of our temporal commodity than of the security and Salvation of our Souls There is no person how engaged soever he be in the next and most dangerous occasions of sin who may not always take for pretence to abide therein some one of these reasons and therefore none will ever believe himself obliged to avoid them Lessius speaking of lewd Discourses saith that it is only a venial sin to hear or utter them 3 Si solum fiat ob voluptatem quae praecise ex ipsa narratione capitur absque ulteriore intentione est peccarum veniale Lessius de just lib. 4. cap. 3. dub 8. num 63. pag. 688. though we take pleasure in them provided we have some other intention besides the pleasure we take therein He might say as much of an idle word or of an inconsiderate discourse spoken at random And a little after speaking of the pleasure which comes by the imagination and thinking of dishonest things he saith also the same thing in another manner He distinguisheth of two sorts of pleasure or rather of two ways of taking pleasure in dishonest things The first is when the pleasure comes from the dishonest thought the second is when it comes from the object or thing it self or the dishonest action whereon we think and wherewith we entertain our selves He declares then that in the first sort of pleasure there is no sin at all And his reason is 1 Si priore modo delectatio percipitur non est per se peccatum quia delectatio sequitur conditionem operis ex quo naseltur Talls enim est delectatio quale est opus ex quo nascitur juxta Aristotelem 10. Eth. cap. 4. Est enim quiddam necessario ex operatione nobis congrua resultans Atqui opus ex quo nascitur non est malum sed bonum vel quid indifferens nimirum notitia veritatis vel rei rarae aut admirandae visio quam notitiam visionem homines magni aestimant etiamsi objectum circa quod versatur maxime execrenâ—ur Ibid. dub 15. num 108. pag. 698. Because the pleasure is of the same nature with the action from whence it proceedeth For it is like unto this action as saith Aristotle in the 10. of his Ethicks cap. 4. and it is a necessary consequent of every operation which is agreeable unto us Now the operation from whence this pleasure issues is not bad but good or at least indifferent to wit the knowledge of the truth or the view of any rare and admirable thing which men esteem very much though they abhor the object of this knowledge and view 2 Hoc modo delectantur homines lectione vel natratione praeliorum duellorum reruth admirandarum quae per artem magicam fiunt vel corum quae percinent ad opus generationis conceptum prolis Ibid. The things the knowledge whereof men so much esteem and which they take so much pleasure to behold or to entertain themselves with are as he saith himself Combats Duels Inchantments of Magicians the Generation of Beasts or men and every thing that belongs to that action So that according to him the thoughts of all these things though a man entertain himself with them voluntarily and with pleasure and even for the pleasures sake which he relishes therein will be no sin For he concludes all his Argumentation in these words 3 Ergo talis delectario non est de se mala This pleasure is not evil in it self He might have said more and infer from the Principle which he saith is Aristotles that this sensual pleasure not only is no sin but it is also commendable and honest since the object he hath given it is good and honest namely the knowledge of the truth Nempe notitia veritatis The only condition then which he demands that we may entertain our selves innocently with the thoughts of these things is that we stay not at the pleasure alone which arises from these thoughts and that we think not of what may come from the thing or the wicked and dishonest action we think on I will not stay to examine this imaginary condition in moral matters any more than the Metaphysical distinction and abstraction whereupon it is grounded I will only say that to declare unto any person that he may take pleasure in any filthy thought provided that he respect not the filthy object that this thought represents unto him or that he be not touched with the pleasure which comes from it naturally is as if one should say that one may stand before a fire provided he be not heated and pass through the dirt provided he be not defiled Common sense only and continual experience shew sufficiently that it is as it were impossible to behold those things which we love and to which we have an inclination as men have naturally to the objects of fleshly concupiscence without exclting love and the motions of that propension we have to them as it is impossible to behold and consider the things which we hate without conceiving an hatred and aversation yet more great against them As for Kisses Lessius propounds a Question in this manner 4 Dissicultes est de osculo quatenus ipsum per se est actus delectabilis carni remote disponens ad seminationem utrum fi quis hac ratione illo uraturs non intendende ulteriorem voluptatem pâ—cces mortaliter Ibid. dab 8. num 58. pag. 687. There is some difficulty about Kisses being considered as actions in themselves agreeable to the flesh and disposing though afar off unto pollution to wit whether in using them in this manner without having an intention to pass any farther in sensual pleasure we sin mortally He answers first according to the opinion which is as he saith himself the more common in the Schools that there is mortal sin in Kisses which are taken in this manner and he testifies that he doth approve it 1 Cômmunis sententia est in istis esse peccatum mortiferum quae mihi probatur tum quia communior tum quia tutius est ut omnia ista quam maxime vitentur tum quia saepe periculum est ulterioris consensus vel morosae delectationis vel etiam pollutionis ratione temperamenti aut peculiaris dispositionis corporis Quam ob causam expedit in hujusmodi non esse laxum Unde etiam inter sponsos censeo plane esse dissuadenda si causa voluptatis fiant First because this opinion is the more common In the second place because it is the safer course to remove our selves as far as we can from these things In the third
sed propter sanitatem vel ad sedandas tentationes nec peceatum quidem veniale est If he be well pleased with this pollution and desire it His answer is 5 Quia quod licitum est desiderare ut fiat licitum est etiam eo gaudere quod factum fit contra si sas gaudere de facto etiam licitum erit desiderare ut fiat Haec enim sunt ejusdem moris Nam gaudium resultat necessario ex bono desiderato obtento supponit vel implicite desiderium includit Lessius supra num 105. That if he be pleased with this pollution and desire it not because of the pleasure but because of his health or to appease temptations it is not so much as a venial sin Lessius gives the reason why the one and the other are lawful to wit to desire pollution and rejoyce in it 6 Because saith he when it is lawful to desire a thing to come to pass it is also lawful to rejoyce in it when it doth come to pass For these things are of the same nature according to the Rules of Morality because delight follows necessarily from the enjoyment of the good we desire and it presupposes and contains in it the desire of this good He seems to set pollution in the rank of good things since he finds the desire thereof and delight taken therein to be good saying 7 Nam gaudium resultat necessario ex bono denderato obtento That delight follows necessarily from the fruition of the good desired And indeed if pollution were not a good action or at least indifferent his Argument were nothing worth For as he saith delight follows the nature of the thing wherein we delight If therefore pollution be wicked and unlawful according to him the delight as well as desire of it would be wicked he could not say as he doth that both are lawful Lessius his opinion then is that pollution is good and commendable or indifferent at least Upon which he expounds himself more clearly in the same place building always upon this same reason and saying for corroboration thereof 8 Confirmatur quia objectum materiale hujus gaudii non est malum formale est bonum Ibid. That the material object of this joy is not wicked and that its formal object is good And he had said a little above that the reason why the desire of pollution was lawful is 9 Râ—…io est quia quod hic desideratur non est peccatum sed per se indifferens Because the thing desired is no sin but in it self indifferent Whence he infers not only that it is lawful to desire the good effect which follows from pullution as health without desiring the pollution it self as some teach who are a little more reserved than himself But he concludes that we may also desire both at once and be well pleased not of the relief only we receive by means of the pollution it self 1 Non solum licitum est gaudere de ipso effectu bono ut quidam volunt quamvis hic sit formalis ratio objectiva seu totum motivum desiderli gaudil consideratus cum conditione futuri vel praesentis sed etiam de ipsa causa pollutione sc propter effectum It is not only lawful saith he to rejoyce in this good effect according to some though this joy have no other object or motive than this effect it self and regards it only as present or to come but it is lawful to delight in the cause it self which is pollution because of the good effect it produces He speaks in all this discourse of pollution as he might of eating and drinking and all indifferent things For in the Morals we can give no other rank unto cating and drinking which are natural actions than that of indifferent things which are not lawful to be desired but because of the need we have of them to the discharging of our duties and preservation of our lives and this Author would have it lawful to say all this of pollution and he saith it in express terms 2 Non est peccatum non est malum est per se indifferens licet eam desiderate licet de ca gaudere Ibid. That it is no evil that it is no sin that of it self it is an indifferent thing that it is lawful to desire it that it is lawful to rejoyce in it So that according to his Principles there is no more ill in pollution than in eating and drinking and as eating and drinking are a remedy against hunger and thirst pollution is according to him a remedy against indisposition heaviness of body and mind and against temptation which puts the Soul in hazard of Salvation And so as we make use of meat and drink to repair our strength and sustain Nature he holds that we may also make use of pollution to recreate Nature and to preserve the health and repose of the mind as well as of the body Whence it follows from these very Principles of this Jesuit and his Brethren that as we may take and demand bread when we are hungry we may likewise not only desire but also procure pollution when we feel our selves urged by temptation or any corporal indisposition which we hope by this means to alleviate This follows necessarily from his Principle For it is allowable to do that which it is lawful to defire and receive with joy it being so that desire and joy cannot be setled but upon good things only as Lessius himself confessed formerly speaking of Pollution it self And it is not only lawful to desire the things which are good and to rejoyce therein but also to do them to seek after and procure them So that if it be lawful to desire pollution in it self and to rejoyce therein it is also lawful to stir up and incline our selves to it as a good and blameless action So they are not ashamed to declare that we are not obliged to abstain from things which cause pollution though we know it by experience And this is the formal decision which Escobar draws from the Principles of the Society 3 Hinc colligo teneri neminem abstinere à calidis cibis ab equitationâ— Ã tali accumbendi rationâ— quibus expertus polluitur Escobar trâ—… â— exam â— num 77. pag. 150. I collect from hence saith he that a person who knows by experience that when he uses hot victuals when he is to ride a journey or lying in his bed in a certain manner he shall fall into pollution is not obliged to abstain from these things Layman saith more clearly the same thing to wit that if the cause from whence pollution proceeds be in it self lawful and honest we are not obliged to avoid it and that pollution in this case is no sin And afterwards he there adds 1 Sed actio talis secundum se honesta est fiâ—is ejus honestus v. c.
two hours and a half before mid-day and in Summer there and a half But if this be done by reason of studying travelling or business it is not so much as a venial sin This priviledge seemed so considerable unto Tambourin that he would gladly have it observed here and to cause all the world to know that it was found worthy to be put into an Abridgment of the Priviledges of the Society of Jesus as one of the most important for the good of the Society it self and for the greater Glory of God Where it must be observed that all this is for them who do imagine that the hour of mid-day is that appointed for repast under pain of mortal sin Whence it follows that they who will not entertain this imagination may eat in the morning if it seems good unto them without breaking their Fast As for the quality of the repast that is made on Fast-days Tolet saith you may fare better than you would have done had it not been Fasting-day 3 Licet tem pore jejunii aâ—quid plus accipere in prandio Tolet. lib. 6. cap. 2. num 4. pag. 103. It is lawful saith he on a Fasting-day to take something more than usual to dinner Sanchez saith the same thing yet more openly and with greater contempt of the Church and its Commands 4 Qui semel in die jejunii comedit curans ita stomachum cibis replere ut nihil prorsus samis patiatur vere implet praeceptum cum tamen legis intentionem quae est fame aliqua carnem macerare defcaudet Sanchez op mor. lib. 1. cap. 14. num 4. pag. 65. He saith he who taking his refection on a Fast-day takes care to fill his belly so with victuals that he may not be hungry doth truly fulfil the Precept though he elude the end of the Law which is to mortifie the flesh by hunger It is lawful then according to this great Doctor to mock the Church in this manner by doing the contrary to what it expects even then when we seem to do what it commands Tolet proceeds yet farther saying that what excess soever we commit in eating or drinking at dinner and how long time soever we spend therein provided there be no intermission the Fast is not broken though sobriety be notably violated and we sin grievously against this vertue In continua autem quantitate prandii non est certa servanda mensura ratione jejunii sed quamvis aliquis multum excedat non ob id solvit jejunium peccat tamen contra sobrietatem Tolet. supra So that we may be three or four hours at table after the manner of Germany and drink and eat as much as we will without breaking the Fast and without transgressing the Order of the Church according to these Fathers We may accomplish a Precept of Abstinence by an excess of gluttony we may fast without sobriety do Penance by sinning and mortifie the flesh and paunch by pampering and stuffing it According to this solid Divinity they all in a manner conclude that drink breaks not the Fast at what time and in what excess soever it be taken At this time saith Bauny in his Sum speaking of the Collation at night Chap. 16. pag. 255. drinking concerns not the Fast as neither on the day Which very well agrees with the Institution of the Fast and as this Jesuit speaks himself pag. 258. with the end for which God and the Church do will and ordain that we should fast which is to bridle the flesh and subdue the appetite under the dominion of reason Use and excess of drinking especially of wine having more force to inflame the flesh and stir up the appetite against reason than the use of the most nourishing meats There are Drunkards that fast all the year according to this Doctrine though they drink themselves drunk every day passing them all almost without eating and contenting themselves with a mouthful of bread and some little matter therewith provided they want not wine The same Author saith in the same place pag. 256 that so often as we eat flesh and eggs on a Fasting-day so many sins we commitâ— but he adds That it is not so in other victuals as bread fish and butter the use whereof repeated so often as our appetite requires them after the second time is no sin His reason is Because seeing that what exceeds above necessary turns into crudities in the stomach which increase not but weaken strength it seems that it cannot reasonably be said that the repast which is taken above the second profits the body much less that it strengthens it He would say that excessive eating and drinking do the same thing that Fasting which is to enfeeble the body and consequently that excesses which are committed in Lent by eating as much and as oft as their appetite requires it after the second time are not sins against the Fast because they are not against the intention and end for which it was instituted This Father hath not considered the difference betwixt mortifying and weakning the body betwixt the abating the violence of sensuality and enervating the forces of Nature The intention of the Church and the end of Fasting is to abate the violence of sensuality and not to deprive the body of its strength It pretends on the contrary to cure by abstinence the weaknesses and infirmities of the body as well as of the Soul as it also declares frequently in the office and in the prayers of the Lent This good Elder took no heed of this distinction He confounds sensuality which is in the body as a strange heat equal to that of a Fever and which gives no strength to it but to rebel against the Spirit and against the Law of God with the force and natural vigour of the body it self which ought to help him in his obedience to the Spirit and to render it more fit and prompt to the outward actions of piety and vertue He pretends that no mortifie sensuality and to weaken the body being one and the same thing according to him he that eats excessively in Lent by that means destroying his health and weakning the natural strength of his body corresponds perfectly well with the intention of the Church when it commands us to fast That is to say that the true way of pursuing the intent of the Church in Lent is to drink and eat excessively and that the best invention to obtain the end of Fasting is not to fast at all but rather to give ones self unto debauches because debauches do more subdue the body than Fasting and they weaken its force which is the end of Fasting according to this great Divine As for the Collation at night Bauny in his Sum Chap. 16. pag. 255. tells us that we may without breaking our Fast take any broth made with herbs or any Sallet with a red Herring And to clear it up yet more largely he demands And if a man should
take some Confection of Almonds or Pottage with coorse-grated bread were it a sin He acknowledgeth with some others whom he quotes that this cannot be done without sin but he declares his opinion in these terms pag. 255. But I believe nevertheless that by the use of these things the Fast is not at all concerned when they exceed not the quantity which is allowed by the custom of the Church received by the consent of prudent persons And that there may be nothing wanting to this reformed Collation he adds that in the time of this Collation drinking concerns not the Fast that is to say that we may take as much thereof as we will without breaking our Fast Azor saith the same thing in these terms 1 Communi jam usu receptum est ut parum panis etiam edatur vel seetsim solum vel u a cum fruâ—tibus herbis vel aliis cibis levioribus enjusmodi sunt ficus uva passa nuces pyra noma vel alia ex saccharo melle confecta vel pisciculus parvulus Nam consuetudini in hac parte standum est Azor. lib. 7. cap. 8. q. 7. The custom is at present to take a little bread only or with fruit herbs or other slight victuals as Figs Raisins Nuts Pears Apples Confections made up with Honey or Sugar or some small fish For herein we must observe the custom If we may take for our Rule the liberty delicacies and excess which custom introduceth every day into Collations there will be no bounds and there will remain no appearance of Fasting at all it being clear that men every day give themselves more liberty in this matter and many times make Collations which are good Suppers and which cost more than those which many persons of every condition who neither do nor pretend to fast do make all the year long Escobar follows Azor in this point 2 Scio equidem Azorium alios piscicu os permittere quod non improbarim si paucâ— sint Escobar tract 1. Exam. 13. cap. 1. num 6. pag. 202. I know well saith he that Azor and others permit to eat little fishes at Collation and I condemn it not if they eat a few Azor nor Bauny spoke of no more than one small fish and Escobar makes him say that it is lawful to eat many Scio Azorium alios permittere pisciculos because according to his Judgment it is indeed lawful to eat more at a Collation provided the quantity be not too great quod non improbarim si sint pauci It will quickly be lawful as we shall see presently to eat a great fish at Collation since many little ones are as much worth as a great one and may be equal to it He adds also 3 De jusculis ex leguminibus amygdalo non consentiunt Doctores permitto si quantitas permissam quantitatem frugum non exaequet Ibid. For what concerns Pottage of Almonds and Pulse the Doctors agree not but he allows them provided the quantity of them be not so great as that of fruit As soon as things concerning manners come to be deliberated of and we begin only to doubt these Doctors who profess an easie and officious Divinity will not fail to take the part of the flesh and blood and to conclude for sensuality and the carnal humor of worldly men We must conclude and finish this Point with a passage of Tambourin who speaks yet much more boldly and is not so scrupulous as the rest He saith 4 Dico de cibis communibus quadragesimalibus hetbis nimirum five crudis five elixis piscibus five parvis five magnis sale coctis fouctibus five recentibus five siccis dulciariis pultibus ex amygdalarum cremore ex leguminibus ea accipi possunt in jentaculo quae cuilibet arrident dummodo conflatum ex pane ut fit praedictis quod accipitur non excedat unciaâ—â—cto Tambur lib. 4. decal cap. 5. sect 3. num 3. That the meats which are used in Lent to wit raw and boiled herbs little or great fish salted fresh or dryed Fruits Confections Milk of Almonds or other Pulse may be taken for Collation which soever we love best provided that the whole with the bread eaten with them exceed not the weight of eight ounces He must be very squeamish who cannot find in so great a diversity of meats what may satisfie his appetite and a very great Eater who cannot be satisfied with the quantity he saith may be taken And yet he adds that on Christmas-Eve we may double the weight and take the quantity of sixteen ounces Perhaps this is because on that day the Fast is greatest and most solemn He proceeds in his indulgence and saith We may add two ounces more to these eight because some hold it is too little and though it may happen that eight ounces may suffice wholly to satiate it ceases not to be lawful to eat them which was prudently introduced to remove scruples from some very religious persons N. 1. Sive iis ccto unciis fames prorsus extinguatur sive nequaquam Id quod prudenter inventum est pro praxi ne scilicet scrupulis pateret paulo religiosioribus via Dixi autem octo circiter uncias Nâ—m parum excedere addendo unam vel alteram unciam supra praedictas octo esset ex nonnullorum sententia provisio materiae nec mortale peccatum constituens This without doubt is an excellent way to remove scruples to take away all pains of the body for fear of creating any to the mind and to allow religious Souls to satiate themselves at Collations that they may be delivered from the care of watching over themselves and from the pains they should take to restrain and moderate their appetites II. POINT That according to the Jesuits Divinity we may on Fast-days drink as much as we please during our Refection or after it and take every time we drink a morsel of bread or some other thing and be drunk also without intrenching on the Fast IT seems that all humane condescendence cannot reduce Fasting lower than these Jesuits do whose opinions we are about to report After they have said that we may anticipate the hour of Refection and both dine and break-fast on Fast-days that we may make our repast as good as we please and better than on the days we fast not so far as to proceed unto excess that we may continue and lengthen it as much as we please and after this make a Collation in the evening which should be a true Supper it might seem that there remained no difficulty in fasting nor any appearance of any foot-step of that holy Severity wherewith it was instituted and faithfully observed in the Church until these last Ages of Ignorance and Corruption have changed it in this manner Yet because the people of the World bred up in luxury and pleasures are never contented with the indulgence and relaxation that is granted
they know probably or certainly that they will break it it is more difficult to grant them this permission yet we grant it them with probability enough because the Victualler provides not these meats nor provokes us to buy them with a direct intention that we should break our Fast or sin but that he might get their money as all Buyers know See here a motive very capable to purifie this action Interest which spoils the best things and corrupts the most holy actions purifies and justifies this which of it self is vicious By this reason it will be lawful for a Merchant to sell poyson to a man whom he knows certainly will take it or give it to another to destroy him since as poyson kills the body so meats taken against the Churches Prohibition kill the Soul and he that sells the poyson hath no more than he that sells the meat a direct intention to kill or commit a spiritual or corporal murder but only to benefit himself by this murder and to get money by the sale of this meat and poyson which are the cause of this murder And so it will be lawful to induce any person whomsoever to violate all the Commands of the Church and God himself if therein we find our interest and can draw thence some temporal benefit ARTICLE III. Of the Commandment to communicate at Easter and of the Confession to be made every year That according to the Jesuits Divinity these Commandments may be satisfied by true Sacriledges THe Jesuits expound not the Commandment to communicate at Easter more Christian-like than the other Commandments of the Church They pretend that it may be satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion and by receiving the Body of Jesus Christ with a criminal conscience nay though we know that we are in this estate and in mortal sin This opinion is common in their School and passes there for indubitable 2 Eucharistiam indigne sumens in die Paschatis satisfacit praecepto Sa verbo Eucharist in fine pag. 233. He that receives the Eucharist unworthily on Easter day satisfies the Precept quoth Emanuel Sa. 3 Quid si indigne communicem Imples tamen per voluntariam susceptionem praeceptum Escobar tract 1. exam 12. cap. 2. num 15. pag. 196. Escobar supposes a person to communicate unworthily and saith that he faileth not for all that to accomplish the Precept though he receive the Body of Jesus Christ in this estate voluntarily that is to say though he commit Sacriledge voluntarily as the rest whom we shall relate hereafter say it openly Filliutius saith the same thing almost in the same terms He demands 1 An impleatur praeceptum per voluntariam susceptionem Sacramenti etiamsi indigne suscipiatur Repondeo â—ico primo impleri Filliutâ— qq mor. tem 1. tract 4. cap. 2. num 60 pag. 74. Whether this Precept may be accomplished by receiving the Sacrament voluntarily though unworthily And his answer is that it is accomplished Amicus is of the same opinion and he expounds it yet better than others 2 Ecclesiasticum praeceptum Eucharistiae omnino censeo impleri etiam per sacrilegam manducationem Amiâ—uâ— tom 8. disp 29. sect 5. num 53. pag. 401. I hold absolutely saith he that the Precept of the Church touching the Eucharist is fulfilled even by a sacrilegious Communion This is a strange manner of obeying the Church by committing Sacriledges and it is to honour it very much to imagine that it may be satisfied with Sacriledges It must needs be that they who believe it to be capable of this have an horrible opinion of it they must believe that it commands Sacriledges if they believe that by obeying it they may be committed and it may be satisfied by these same Sacriledges For when it commands any thing it cannot be satisfied otherwise than by doing what it commandeth Jesus Christ hath said in the Gospel that they who despise the Church and its Pastors despise himself and these Jesuits make the Church to say that those who despise Jesus Christ and dishonour him outragiously by a sacrilegious Communion cease not to obey and satisfie it by fulfilling its Commandment Celot having undertaken to prove against Aurelius that the Laws of the Church and Gospel may be accomplished without love speaks thus against him 3 Non enim post disputata cum Judaeis disputare potest Aurelius qâ—i Paschalem synaxim cum conscientia lethalis peccati celebraverit quin is nihilominus Ecclesiae paruerit justitiam operum si non justitiam legis impleverit Celot lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 124. Aurelius cannot doubt but that he who communicates at Easter in mortal sin satisfies the Command of the Church and yet though he accomplisheth not the Justice of the Law he accomplisheth for all that the Justice of Works He would not that his Adversary should doubt of this Maxime though he knew well enough that he did not only doubt of it but condemn it Coninck to prove that the Commandment of the Church may be fulfilled not only in an estate of sin but also by an action which is a sin brings an Example of a man who communicates unworthily at Easter 4 Ut patet in jejunante eb vanam gloriam aut in Paschate indigne communicante Coninck de Sacr. q 83. a. 6. d. uni n. 296. p. 286. As it is clear saith he in his case who fasts for vain-glory or communicates unworthily at Easter Which he propounds as a constant Maxime and of which it was not lawful to make any doubt saying 5 Nâ—m certum est eum satisfacere praecepto Ecclesiae qui simulat se jejunare ex pietate pie in Paschate communicare etsi jejunet ob vanam gloriam sacrilege communicet Ibid. That it is certain that he satisfies the Precept of the Church who makes shew of Fasting for devotion and of communicating at Easter with requisite piety though he fasteth out of vain-glory and commits Sacriledge in communicating This is also the opinion of Azor answering those who demand 6 An qui in die Paschatis Sacramentum Eucharistiae accipit indigene videlicet aut sua peccata non legitime confessus aut alio quolibet modo lethalis peccati conlcius Ecclesiae praeceptum implear Whether he who receives the Sacrament of the Eucharist unworthily on Easter day whether it be that he hath not well confessed his sins or for some other defect which renders him guilty of mortal sin do accomplish the Precept of the Church For he saith 7 Respondeo eum implere Is enim licet jus divinum frangat aut violet male ad Sacramentum accedendo legis tamen Ecclesiasticae substantiam servar Azor Instit lib. 7. cap. 30. pag. 734. That he accomplisheth the Precept of the Church And his reason is Because though he violate the Law of God by approaching the Sacrament in a wicked estate yet he observes the Law of the Church in the
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
true piety and true vertue and the eternal Salvation of Souls and not the appearances and shadows of falshood and hypocrisie He repeats the same thing afterwards and he saith it also more clearly and strongly in these terms 2 Duplex est lex legislatrix potestas Ecclesiastick civilis Differunt inter se tum ratione originis quia Ecclesiastica potestas proxime immediate à Deo instituta est civilis vero ab hominibus provenit tum ratione objecti finis quia Ecclesiastica versatur peâ— se directe â—rga res spirituales ad salutem vitam aeternam ordinatas sicut constat ex verbis Christi Matth. 16. Tibi dabo claves regni coelorum Joan. 21. Pasce oves meas ex Apostolo Paulo cap. 2. Act. Posuit nos Spiritus Sanctus Episcopos regere Ecclesiam Dei quam acquisivit sanguine suo Ibid. cap. 6. num 1. pag. 53. There are two sorts of Laws and two sorts of Powers to make Laws Ecclesiastick and Civil They are different as well in their original because the Ecclesiastick Power is instituted immediately from God and the Civil Power comes immediately from men as in their objects and their ends because the Ecclesiastick Power regards properly and directly spiritual things which conduct Souls unto Salvation and eternal life as those words of our Saviour in Matth. 16. do testifie I will give thee the keys of the Kingdom of Heaven and in S. John 21. Feed my lambs and those of S. Paul in Act. 20. The Holy Ghost hath established you Bishops to govern the Church of God which he hath purchased with his Blood He explicates the same truth yet more fully and discovers the principal foundation thereof pursuing his discourse and drawing this consequence from what he now said 3 Quare cum Christus sanguinem suum fuderit ut acquireret fundaret Ecclesiam sanctam ad vitam aeternam ordinatam idcirco etiam Pastores Episcopos el constituit qui ad cundem vitae aeâ—ernae finem Ecclesiam dirigerent gubernatent Civilis vero potestas per se ac directe temporalem tantum commoditatem ceu pacem spectat Ibid. Wherefore Jesus Christ having shed his Blood to purchase and found a Church which is holy and ordained to eternal life he hath also given it Pastors and Bishops to govern and conduct it to this very eternal life But Civil Power regards properly and directly wealth and peace temporal only Which shews clearly the difference which is betwixt Politick and Church power and betwixt the Laws of the one and the other For the Civil Power regards the outward order and civil tranquillity alone and prescribes none but outward and humane means to attain this end But the Church being established for procuring unto men eternal life inward and divine peace it ought to have power to ordain means and to give commands proportionate to that end whereunto we cannot attain but by actions of the Soul altogether spiritual and divine And for that cause it must needs be that its commands should be more internal than external spiritual than corporal divine than humane We need then no other proofs against the errours of Layman and his Brethren than his own confession which is more than sufficient to overturn all that they said before that we might satisfie the Commandments of the Church by actions of vain-glory lust avarice and Sacriledges That we may fulfil them without any will to fulfil them and even with an express will not to satisfie them and to despise them provided we do outwardly what is commanded For these actions thus done have no communication with the Salvation of Souls and eternal life and being rather formally opposite thereto they also have nothing common with the Commandments of the Church which ordains for its Children no other than means to attain unto eternal life and works which procure the Salvation of the Soul that is to say actions of vertue and charity sobriety penitence and obedience especially which is the Soul and Spirit of all other actions For to answer unto a truth so clear what Sanchez doth that the Church commands only a material obedience is to forget the respect due unto the Church and to oppose the light of reason as well as of Faith and the Gospel 1 Quod si objicias praecepra obligare ad â—bedientiam quae non adesse videtur ubi non adest intentio satisfaciendi praecepto Râ—spondeo non obligare ad obedientiam formalem sed materialem nempe ut fiâ—t quod praecipitur quamvis non fiat proprerea quod praecipitur Sanchez mor. qq lib. 1. cap. 13. num 9. pag. 63. But if you object saith this Jesuit that the Commandments oblige unto obedience and that it seems that he hath it not who hath no intent at all to satisfie the Commandment I answer that they oblige not to a formal but material obedience that is to do that which is commanded though it be not done for the reason it was commanded And if this Explication make you not to understand sufficiently what this material obedience is Layman will declare it unto you more perspicuously and will tell you that it is a corporal and purely external obedience maintaining that the Church demands no other and proving it by Seneca's Authority who was without doubt very intelligent in the Government of the Church and an excellent Judge of the Authority it hath received from Jesus Christ for conducting Souls unto eternal life 2 Convenienter videtur ut humana potestas fire jurisdictio solum se extendat ad actiones humanas quatenus in externam materiam transeunt ut signo aliquo produntur quod etiam Seneca notat lib. 3. de Beneficiis Etrat si quis puter servitutem in totum hominem descendere Pars enim melior excepta est Corpora obnoxia sunt adscripts dominis mens sui juris est Layman l. 1. tr 4. c 4. n. 5. pag 49. It seems saith Layman that it is reasonable that humane Power and Jurisdiction should not be extended farther than to humane actions which are discernable by their objects and some external sign Which Seneca also observes in 5. Book de Beneficiis It is an errour to believe that servitude extends it self over all that which is in man his best part is exempt from it The body only is subject to the will of a Master and depends on his power but his spirit is always independent and its own We must then believe according to the opinion of this Jesuit since he hath learned it of Seneca that the Church hath no power save over the bodies of Christians no more than Masters have over those of their slaves and Princes over their Subjects that Christ hath not subjected unto it the whole man but the least part of him which is his body and it hath no power over Souls which are free and independent in respect of it and in