negat Petrus Aurelius actum vult intelligi I say that the Apostle in this place demands only the habit of Charity Petrus Aurelius on the contrary holds that it ought to be extended unto the act And a little after 3 Actum profecto laudant suadent omnibus praeserunt Scripturae at habitum charitatis tanquam rem semper necessariam expetunt Celot lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 125. It is true that the Scripture commends the act of Charity that it directs and advises us to it and prefers it before all other things but it commands the habit as being continually necessary If S. Paul speak in this place only of the habit of Charity he requires it in vain of the Corinthians seeing they had it as he himself supposes calling them just and holy it is in vain that he exhorts that he advertises them that when they suffer any persecution when they give alms when they perform any other good work they should do it of Charity since they having the habit of Charity could not act otherwise than by Charity this habit having necessary influence upon all their actions as Celot pretends Coninck speaks also more clearly to this Point For he saith that to be a Martyr it is not necessary to have an actual will nor so much as a virtual one but that it sufficeth to have an interpretative and habitual one according to the language of the Schools And he explains this term of an interpretative and virtual one by these Examples 1 Qualis est in eo primo qui fugiens tyrannum à quo compellitur ad impia in fuga subito occiditur Secundo in eo qui sollicitatur ad defectionem fidei quia banc recusavit dormiens occiditur Coninck 3. p. q. 66. de baptis a. 12. n. 136. p. 80. Such an one as that of a person flying from a Tyrant who would force him to some impiety is slain unexpectedly in his flight or at least of him who being sollicited to renounce the faith is killed in his sleep because he refused to do it And because it may be said that these persons had a will to maintain the faith and to dye for it since the one fled for fear to lose it and the other refused to renounce it and so they are faithful in their will to dye for the faith he declares that neither is this at all necessary and that 2 Imo videtur sufficere ut in odium fidei occidatur eâ—si de confessione fidei nihil prius cogitaveriâ—… v.c. si subito hostium incursu deprehendatur dormiens in odium fidei occidatur Ibid. it sufficeth that they be killed out of hatred to the faith though they had not formerly so much as a thought of confessing it as it happens when in sudden Eruptions of Barbarians one is killed in his sleep through hatred of faith So that he believes that one may be a Martyr and merit the reward of Martyrdom not only without any act of Charity but also without any act of Faith and without so much as any natural and reasonable act dying without any apprehension and without any thought had before-hand of dying for the Faith Perhaps it may be imagined that he grounds himself on the preparation of the heart of this man believing that God regards the good disposition which he had unto Martyrdom But neither doth he demand so much as that And he presupposeth on the contrary that if it had been put to his choice either to dye or renounce God and Jesus Christ he would rather have been ready and in more danger to abandon the Faith 3 Nic refert quod talis forte fi ei mors proponeretur prae timore negaret Deum quia haec conditionolis propositio nihil ponit in re atque ita nihil obest Idem pag. 139. It matters not saith he though if death had been proposed unto this man the fear it would have brought on him would possibly have forced him to forget God because this conditional supposition produces no real thing in this man and so it cannot hurt him He believes then that to be a Martyr it is not at all necessary to have so much as a conditional will to dye for God if occasions were presented that the contrary disposition rather to forsake God than to lose his life on this occasion cannot hurt him and by consequence that it is not bad nor hinders a man from being in an estate to receive the Crown of Martyrdom if he dye without ever thinking of it in this disposition by the hand of a Tyrant But he discovers the ground of this Doctrine when he saith 4 Potest quis magis eligere mori quam negare Christum impulius solo metu gehennae Idem d. 1. num 118. pag. 77. That a man may resolve with himself in this case to dye rather than forsake Jesus Christ by fear of Hell only That is to say that without charity or love of God the fear of the pains of Hell only may make a true Martyr contrary to S. Paul and contrary to the consent of all the Saints Scripture and Church who declare publickly when the Feasts of the Martyrs are celebrated 5 Eâ— quia pro ejus amore sanguinem suum fuderune ideo cum Christo exultant sine fine That it is because they shed their blood for the love of God and Jesus Christ that they rejoyce eternally with him And by consequence that he who sheds not his blood for the love of God shall have no part in the joy of Jesus Christ and loseth his labour as S. Paul saith 6 Si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardeam charitatem autem non habutro nihil mihi prodest 1 Cor. cap. 15. Father Anthony Sirmond in a Treatise of the defence of Vertue part 3. pag 54. Though I give my body to be burnt and have not charity it profits me nothing The Father Anthony Sirmond eludes also these very words of the Apostle by maintaining that he means only to say that if a man be in mortal sin all these things that is to say Faith Alms and Martyrdom are of no benefit Whence he concludes That S. Paul requires not nor could require any thing but habitual charity only exempt from all mortal sin 3 part p. 51. of the Treatise of the Defence of Vertue He is not content to say that S. Paul requires no other disposition to Martyrdom than to be exempt from mortal sin though there be no motion of charity nor any will to dye for God but he adds also that the Apostle could not require any other thing And as if to require any other thing were rigour or unreasonable injustice he concludes with this exclamation What! would you oblige the Martyrs going unto Martyrdom unto some act of Charity That is to say that according unto him it is a thing not only far off from justice and reason but also without
authorize vice and sin than to approve and tolerate all that which nourishes them and to abolish all that which is opposite to them and may destroy them 2. That the things which beget and nourish vice and sin are partly within man as corrupt seeds from whence proceed all the evil which he commits and partly without man as outward objects which beating upon his senses and his mind carry his will to consent unto evil and sin which abides and acts incessantly within him 3. That the things which are within man as the corrupt fountain from whence comes all the disorders and sins which he commits are lust ignorance and evil habits and hypocrisie or the secret malice of the heart covered with a veil of good intention and that the outward things which carry him on unto evil are the occasions of sin the objects which draw on the evil examples the evil customs which excite them and nourish them and above all humane Authority and humane Reason corrupted by sin which furnisheth Inventions for continuance in evil and in the occasions of evil wherein he is engaged and to justifie or excuse the most criminal actions by imaginary probabilities 4. That the things which destroy or expel sin are likewise of two sorts some as if it were internal and others external I call those internal which attract to and establish in the heart of man the Grace of God by which sin is destroyed such as are Faith Prayer Repentance good Works and a right use of the Sacraments I call these external which do from without represent sin unto a man whether it be by the knowledge which they give him of its malice of the hatred which God bears towards it of the punishments which he hath prepared for it in the other life and those with which he punisheth it sometimes even in this very life or which in any other like manner may give him an aversion from it and hinder him from committing it as are the Commandments of God those of the Church and generally all the holy Scriptures old and new which contain all the Promises which God hath made to good men and all the evils with which he doth threaten sinners There is no person I am confident who will not easily agree to these Truths and general Principles So that I have nothing to do but apply them to the particular Subject which I handle to acquit my self entirely of what I have undertaken to prove to wit that the Divinity of the Jesuits is as favourable to vice and sin as possibly it can be It suffices me for this purpose to make appear that it nourishes lust ignorance evil habits and the corruption of the will covered with a veil and pretence of a good intention That it entertains men in occasions of sin in evil customs in licences and abuses as well publick and common to all as peculiar to every Profession making use of humane and corrupt Reason for authorizing these disorders and to make them pass as good and indifferent and gives for a Rule of Christian life and the Foundation of eternal life not Faith and the Word of God but the Authority of Men and all the imaginations and thoughts which present themselves unto their minds provided they can render them probable and give them some colour and appearance of truth That it abolisheth or corrupts Repentance Prayers good Works the Sacraments the Commands of God of the Church and the Holy Scriptures That finally it introduceth and confirmeth corruption and loosness in all sorts of Professions Seculars and Ecclesiasticks attempting to justifie and excuse those vices and sins which are most opposite thereto and which are to them for all that most common as injustice in the Courts unfaithfulness in Traffick and other such like If I can justifie all these things I have all my design accomplished and I shall have shewed that the Jesuits Divinity favours and nourishes vice and sin as much as men can do and that they seem to be become thereof the Advocates and Professors Which I hope to do in this Writing with so much clearness that no person shalt be thereof unconvinced and with such perfect fidelity that those who are the least equitable because they are too scrupulous or too passionate shall have nothing to reproach me with on this Subject For I will do nothing else but report simply the Opinions of the Authors Jesuits as they have expressed themselves in their Books I will frequently add their proper Reasons and in the more important Points I shall sometimes ascend to the Principles from whence they draw their Conclusions I undertake not to refute their Errours but only to discover them and make them appear This is the cause why without engaging my self to produce the places of holy Scripture or of Tradition any more than the Reasons which may be alledged to refel them I content my self to consider and represent them in such sort that they may be understood what they are and many times I content my self to reherse them as they themselves express them when that is sufficient to raise an horrour against them When the malice is more concealed I endeavour to discover it and to make it evident by some Reflections or some Observations or by Examples and sensible Comparisons and if I make use of any Reasons I take them in a manner always from themselves or from Principles of Faith and natural Light which are altogether indubitable and so evident that to oppose them were to renounce common sense as well as Christian Piety and Religion I meddle not here with matters of Faith nor Mysteries of Religion where it was as easie to make appear that the Jesuits are no less transported than in the Maxims of Morality as will appear clearly by one Example out of the Chapter of Jesus Christ which I thought should be added to that of Grace There may be seen in what manner they speak of the Son of God of his Incarnation of his Humanity of his Divine Person and that they have thereof thoughts so base so unworthy so shameful that they are not more proper for any end than to expose our Mysteries to the scorn and contempt of Infidels and Libertines and to raise horrour and aversation in the Faithful themselves by their impious expressions and reasonings by which they profane Holiness it self and destroy the respect and veneration which ought to be given it I insist upon Moral matters only and even without design to contain them all I should need many Volumes only to make an Extract of that which may be found in their Books contrary to good Manners and to Christian Piety I intend only to collect some principal Propositions by which Judgment may be made of the rest I report them simply as they are in their Books And when I translate them I will set the passages on the Margent in Latine to the end that the fidelity and sincerity with which I recite them may appear
in reputation for a knowing and honest man as are in a manner all those of their Society and especially in the judgement of the Peasants of whom he speaks that fornication and theft are sins but that the desire of the one and the other are lawfull For after he had said that even amongst the Modern Casuists there are some who would not excuse this Peasant of mortal sin if following the advice of this man whom he beleeves to be learned and pious he should voluntarily entertain such a desire of fornication he adjoyns in favour of this Peasant or rather of fornication a Quibusdam neotericis doctis videtur banc ignorantiam minime excusare at quamvis hoc probabile sit probabilius tamen credo actum internum excusari omnino à malitia Ibid. though that opinion be probable yet I beleeve that it is more probable that this interiour act is exempt from all sin These two expedients may be made use of indifferently albeit the first is more proper for men of understanding who know how to make metaphysical abstractions and the second for simple and ignorant persons such as are Peasants who may also draw this advantage from the Divinity of the Jesuits above persons of wit and understanding that because of their ignorance they may even commit fornication it self without sin Because invincible ignorance excusing them from sin as the whole Society do agree it as we shall see hereafter when we come to speak of sins of ignorance Filliutius and some others assure us that one may be ignorant that fornication is a sin without being guilty b Septimo quaero an dari possit ignorantia invincibilis fornicationis Respondeo posse dari Filliut mor. q. tom 2. tr 30. c. 2. n. 50. p. 389 It may be demanded saith Filliutius if a man may be invincibly ignorant that fornication is a sin And he adds immediately after I answer that one may Azor having taught the same thing before him putting into the number of things which a man may be invincibly ignorant of c Ad scortum accedere Azor. tom 1. l. 1. c. 13. p. 34. to go to a Whore Whence it follows according to them that one may in this estate of ignorance commit fornication without sin It is true that they are constrained to acknowledge that it is hard to find this invincible ignorance amongst Christians but then they return presently to their general proposition d Dari potest ignorantia inviacibilis fornicationis Multi enim vulgares bomines sunt qui nesciunt distinguere inter peccata permissa vèl non prohibita quoad poenam ut exâ—o quod non punitur fornicatione simplex sed impuné permittuntur meretrices putant etiam non esse peccdtum ad eas accedere quod etiam in civitatibus alioquin bene institutis in fide religione persaepe locum habet ut ii qui confessiones excipiunt ritè norunt Filliut ibid. n. 51. That for all this it is not impossible that one may be invincibly ignorant even amongst Christians that fornication is a sin for there are many persons amongst the Common people who know not how to discern amongst certain sins those which are tolerated or not forbidden which though they be not punished yet their disorders are not approved as in regard that simple fornication is not punished or that common women are tollerated they think also that it is no sin to go to them Which thing happens even in Cities where great pains are taken to instruct the people in the matters of Faith and Religion as they know very well who hear their Confessions And by consequence those persons may by the favour of their ignorance innocently commit fornication and particularly with common women Men of ingenuity and understanding may also enjoy the same priviledge with these ignorants when they are not in a condition to make use of their knowledge and wit For Filliutius gives them his liberty to commit the acts not only of fornication but also of adultery of incest and of all other crimes or at least he wil excuse those that they have committed in that estate and if after they come to remember what they have done he permits them to take pleasure and to rejoyce as if they had done the most honest and most lawfull actions e Quaro quinto on delectatio de re mortali ratione somni ebrietatis amentiae vel ignorantiae excusetur Filliut ib. tr 21. c. 5. n. 290 p. 34. I demand saith he whether fleep drunkennesse madnesse or ignorance frees from sin the pleasure that one takes in a criminal action which one committed in that estate He relates on this matter two contrary opinions of which the first condemns this pleasure of sin the second frees it therefrom He in the following discourse decides this controversie and concludes in these terms f Delectationes illae etiamsi malae non essent tamen indicant imperfectum affectum ad castitotem Ibid. n. 291. I say first that the former opinion is probable and that it is good to advise according thereto as the more assured for them who aspire unto perfection and to those who have made vows of Chastity or who are much in love with this vertue for though this kind of pleasure were not ill yet it is a mark that Chastity is but imperfectly loved But as for common persons and such as lead an ordinary course of life in the world he establisheth for them this other conclusion a Dico 2. secundam sententiam videri probabilem absolutè tutam quia non est dilectatio de opere malo sed ex indifferenti Ibid. The second opinion seems to me more probable than the former and absolutely one may follow it with confidence The reason is because this pleasure hath not for its object any evil action but an indifferent one Which he repeats also a little while after answering the principal reason of the contrary opinion which was that it is not lawfull to take pleasure in an evil action b Unde ad rationem oppositam respondetur factum de se non esse mortale quia hoc ipso quo sit absque libertate res quaedam est indifferens sicut occisio ammal is concubit no brutorum inter se Ibid. 293. I answer saith he to the reason alledged against this opinion that this action is not a mortal sin in it self because being done without liberty it follows that it is indifferent as the killing of a beast or the coupling of beasts He makes great use of this comparison to this purpose in imitation of the Holy Scripture which compares those who are addicted to fleshly pleasure to Horses and Mules but he conceives amisse of the sense of the Scripture for in that he so boldly justifies these infamous persons he must condemn it which condemns them c Hi nempe qui conjugium ita suscipiunt ut Deum Ã
according to the Jesuits and that custom of sinning may make a man uncapable of sinning AS in doing evil we accustom our selves thereunto and in following lusts we cause them to pass into habits which strengthen and increase more the inclination we had unto evil the order of reason requires in the design we have to consider the springs and the principles of sin to make appear how the Jesuits nourish them that after we have treated of Lust we speak also of evil habits I propose for example of habitual sins swearing and blasphemy because these sins of themselves produce neither pleasure nor profit its onely passion which carries men to them and evil custom which nourisheth them So that to speak properly and according to their peculiar nature they are sins of passion and habit Bauny in his summe chap. 4. pag. 60. speaking of a person accustomed to swear who for this reason is always in danger to be forsworn gives this counsel to their Confessours The Confessor to hinder this evil ought to draw from his penitent an act of dislike or to speak better of disavowing this cursed custom For by this means the oaths which follow proceeding from such an habit shall be esteemed involuntary in their cause Suarez l. 3. of Oaths chap. 6 Sanchez in his Summe l. 3. c. 5. n. 11. and by consequence without sin This practice is very easie and very convenient if it be so that one word of disowning sins which a Confessor can draw out of the mouth of a sinner may serve all at once to be a remedy for all the sins which he hath committed and for the justification of all the sins he shall be able to commit for the future by the violence of an evil habit so the simple declaration which a man shall make of his being sorry to see himself subject to such a vice sufficeth to excuse him from all the sins which he shall afterwards commit by that habit which he hath of this vice as the debauches and excesses of the mouth immodest speeches lyes deceits thefts and other such like And so almost all vices of this sort shall be innocent there being few persons that are not sorry for being engaged in them and being unable to avoid them because of their long accustoming themselves unto them or who at least do not or will not sometimes disallow them and testifie some displeasure against them in some good interval And yet if this good Father had been well read in Sanchez whom he cites I am confident he would have been render'd yet more easie and complacent in this point For Sanchez acknowledges no particular sin in Oaths that proceed of an habit though no disavowing them be made to excuse them as Bauny requires See how he speaks herein p Posterior sententia cui tanquam probabiliori accedo ait juramenta prolata sine advertentia formali per se sufficienti ad peccatum mortal non esse in se novum ac proprium ac speciale peccat um propter solam jurandi consuetudinem qualiscumque fit nedum sit retracta Sanchez op mor. part 1. l. 3. c. 5. n. 28. p. 21. The last opinion which I follow as the most probable holds that those Oaths which are made without actual application which of it self were sufficient to a mortal sin are not of themselves new sins properly and particularly onely because of the custom of swearing how great soever it be and though no renunciation or retractation be made of it Escobar is not far off from this opinion where speaking of blasphemy he demands q Num aliquando venialis blasphemia Consuetudo quidem absque advertentia lethale peccatum non facit Escobar tract 1. exam 3. cap. 6. num 28. pag 73. If blasphemy be sometimes a venial sins And he answers absolutely according to his use That such a custom whereof one thinks not at all makes sin not to be mortal But for the most part hinders it from being mortal as it would he if he did swear without being accustomed Filliutius speaks the same more at large and more clearly a Octavo quaero de consuetudine blasphemandi ordine ad malitiam Respendeo dico 1. si desit advertentia plena ca toriatur blasphemia etiamsi adsit consuetudo blasphemandi non commitâ—itur peccatum mortale Filliutius 〈◊〉 qq tom 2 tract 25. cap. 1. num 27. pag 173. It is demanded what sin it is to blaspheme customarily I answer in the first place that when a man blaspames without having full knowledge thereof how much soever he be accustomed thereto he sins not mortally He taken the reason of this conclusion out of a general principle which he presupposeth as assured b Ratio est quia ut diximus de voluntario libero ad â—…ccatum mortale requiritur advertentia plenâ— undecunque oriatur defectus illius excusat a peceato Ibid. The reason is saith he because as we have said handling free and voluntary actions to six mortally it behoves to have a full knowledge for want of which on what account soever it comes sin is thereby bindered He demands in the same place c An jurandi consuâ—tudo constituat hominem in statu peccati If the custom of swearing put a man in the estate of sin First of all he reports the opinion of those who hold the affirmative afterwards he speaks his own in these terms d Dico 2. consuâ—tudinem jurandi sine necessitate vel utilitate sed cum veritate sufficiente advertentia non esse peccatum grave ex se nec constituere hominem in statu peccati mortalis Ibid. cap. 10. n. 313. I say in the second place that the custom of swearing without necessity and without utility but with verity and without sufficient knowledge and reflection is not of it self a great sin and puts not a man into a state of mortal sin He demands again on the same subject e Sitne perjurium cum in advertentia naturali peccatum mortale ob consuetudinem perjurandi Ibid. n. 316. If perjury which one commits through natural inadvertence be a mortal sin because of the custom he hath to forswear And rejecting the opinion of those who believed it to be a mortal sin he answers f Dico 2. Probabilius est non esse peccatum mortale speciale quando est sine advertentia naturali Ibid. I say in the second place that it is more probable that there is no mortal sin particularly when one forsweareth himself without perceiving it at all and by a natural inadvertence And a little after he adds g Etiamsi operans sit cum habituali affectu ad peccatum Ibid. Though he who doth it hath his will effectually addicted to sin by an evil habit So that according to the judgement of this Divine although he swear with full knowledge provided that it be not against truth although he swear against the truth and
not obliged to declare his quality of a Priest Dianae adhaereo saith the same Jesuit But see here an Example which surpasseth all the rest and which tends to hide from a Confessor the most enormous Sacriledges without sparing the respect which all the faithful and especially Priests ought to have to the body and blood of Jesus Christ 3 Si Sacerdos portans sanctam Eucharistiam infamaret furaretur tam gravem irreverentiam non video Tambur n. 42 sect 5. c. 7. l. 2. meth confess If a Priest whilst he carries the holy Sacrament calumniate and defame his neighbour or rob him and take from him his goods it is not necessary that he declare this circumstance in Confession And see here his reason I fee not herein saith he any great irreverence and in the mean time it had been great and criminal if he had done the same thing in the Chamber of a King or in his Presence the King looking on and certainly knowing his crimes Dicastillus is not more respective to this divine Sacrament 4 Observant Vasquez communiter Doctores cò gravius esse peccatum suscipiendi indignè quò quis pluribus majoribus peccatis est irretitus Non tamen putat Vasquez esse necessarie explicandum in confessione an cum multis vel cum paucioribus quis accesserit Quae doctrina mihi placet Sufficit enim si explicet se in statu peccati mortalis accessisse Dicast n 37. d. 2. d. 9. tract 4. de Euch. The irreverence and the sin of him who approacheth unworthily to the Eucharist are so much greater saith Vasquez as his soul is charged with more enormous and greater number of mortal sins and nevertheless the same Vasquez teaches that he is not obliged to declare in Confession the number of these crimes And this Doctrine pleaseth me adds Dicastillus For it is enough to accuse himself that he did participate of the Eucharist being in the estate of mortal sin For what concerns evil habits and relapses into the same fins Bauny inquireth Whether frequent and ordinary relapses be circumstances whereof the Confessor ought to be instructed by the Penitent in his Confession And after he had related the opinion of those who hold that the Penitent is obliged to tell these circumstances and that in such case it is expedient to defer the absolution he answers that nevertheless according to his apprehension the contrary opinion as being more conformable to reason and favourable to the Penitent ought to be held and followed in the practice Chap. 59 pag. 621 622 The reasons upon which he foundeth his resolution are considerable The first is that this is more agreeable to reason as if humane reason especially in an estate wherein it is corrupted by fin were the Rule of a Christian who ought to live by faith The second that it is more favourable to the Penitent also That is that it is more favourable for entertaining his pride and his vanity as he expounds it himself sufficiently Afterwards he brings for his third reason That a Penitent cannot inform his Confessor concerning his lapses proceeding from an inveterate habit without manifesting unto him his past offences with shame for his weakness and pronounces definitively concluding in these terms Therefore he is not bound But one part of Repentance consisting in the confusion which a Penitent resenteth for having offended God this is not to be too favourable to him who hath a true design to do Penance and to be converted but to dispense as much as is possible with repentance by delivering him from the pain and confusion which he might have had in discovering his weaknesses to his Confessor He saith the same thing in his Moral Divinity save that writing in Latine he talks also more freely and boldly For he is not content to say that although frequent relapse into the same sins is a very notable circumstance the Penitent is nevertheless not obliged to declare it whether it come from an evil habit or from the next occasions in which he is engaged but he maintains also 1 Dubitatur 12. an circumstantia recidiva sit confitenda Teneri poenitentem consu etudinem peccati confiteri si à confessario interrogatur Tamen Vasquez Henriquez c. maximè si haec oritur ex proxima peccandi occasione quam poenitens tenetur reserare Contrarium docet Saucius in select is disputat 9. num 6. Et haec opinio priore videtur esse probabilior sequenda in praxi quia Confessarius jus non habet interrogandi poenitentem de consuetudine peccandi nisi ejus rei gravem causam habeat rarò accidit Deinde non est in ejus jure afficere poenitentem dedecore cognita ejus peccandi consuetudine sed debet eum statim absolvere si dolorem de peccatis concipit cum proposito futurae emendationis Bauny Theol. mor. p. 1. tract 4. de poenit q. 15. pag. 137. That a Confessor bath not so much as a right to interrogate the Penitent touching the custom of sinning if he be not obliged thereto by some important reason which happens seldom that he hath not a right neither to put the Penitent to confusion when he knows he is accustomed to commit some sin but that he ought forthwith to absolve him if he put forth some act of sorrow for his sins past with a resolution to amend So that if a Confessor demand of some person who accuseth himself of some great sin if he have formerly committed it whether he have fallen therinto often and whether his relapses come from the next occasions or from the habit he hath of this sin the Penitent according to Bauny may elude all these interrogations if he had not rather lye according to some others or say openly that he is not obliged to answer to these Articles and if his Confessor press him very sore thereto he may say that he is grounded on a probable opinion and his Confessor shall be obliged to rest satisfied therewith and to give him absolution readily according to the words of this Casuist debet eum statim absolvere How horrible is this Divinity And which is altogether admirable in the Doctrine of these Fathers in the very same time that they say that the Penitent is not obliged to answer unto these Articles 2 Dicastillus n. 194. d. 3. d. 9. tr 8. de poenit Non tenetur ei dicere illam circumstantiam and that the Confessor cannot constrain him thereto tunc non potest cogere illum Confessarius he assures us that the Confessor who is of contrary judgment to that of his Penitent may examine him on these very Articles Respondetur posse Confessarium interrogare de iis circumstantiis The one then may interrogate and the other may refuse to answer the one hath a right to take cognizance of these Articles and the other hath a right to refuse it him the one in asking performes his