Probabiliter ergo tam suscipiens quam conferens Ordinem ante ordinandi Confi mationem venialiter deliquit Ibid. that it is then probable that both he who confers and he who receives Orders before Confirmation sin only Venially This is sufficiently to despise the Sacrament of Confirmation not to vouchsafe to take the pains to receive it for preparation to holy Orders then when it may so easily be given by the same Bishop who confers the Orders But this it also a greater contempt of the order of the Church of the Authority of an Oecumenick Council and of all Ecclesiastick Tradition and Discipline not to fear at least to violate it by a voluntary withdrawing from and neglect of these so formal words of the Council of Trent Primâ Tonsurâ non initientur qui Sacramentum Confirmationis non susceperint As if these words did not contain an Ordinance but only a counsel and simple proposition Which is a very easie way to overthrow all the Decrees of Councils and the Church and to render them entirely unprofitable Here we must take notice of the spirit of these Divines and the licence which they take to play with Sacraments and Consciences They debase Confirmation as much as they can and carry themselves with visible passion to the diminishing of the vertue of this Sacrament which is the accomplishment of Baptism without which the grace of Baptism continues imperfect and Christians are not such but only imperfectly according to the Fathers and on the other hand we see them carry indifferently all the world to confession and the Communion with so much ardour and importunity that they make it the head point of their direction as the greater part of those who follow their conduct make it the principal part of their devotion Which thing is so much the more considerable for that if we pre-suppose even with them that there is no command which obliges us to receive Confirmation so also neither is there any that obliges us to confess ofther then once a year and this precept of Confession is not at all for Venial sins which notwithstanding are the matter of the Confessions which they reiterate and cause to be reiterated so often by devout persons and those who defire to live Christian-like and nevertheless if they knew any one who should divert Penitents from their Tribunals or who should only say to them that it was not necessary for them to confess so often when they have only Venial sins which may be blotted out by other ways they would doubtless condemn him and hold him more to blame then if he had committed some great crime and yet they make no scruple to turn away all the faithful indifferently from Confirmation by this reason only although a false one that there is no obligation nor necessity on them to receive it But if any will say that the custom of confessing and communicating frequently is received in the Church and those who make a special Profession of Piety ought to follow it and cannot neglect it without testifying that they contemn it with pride we must confess by this reason that we are much more obliged to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation and we cannot neglect the opportunities thereof without discovering greater pride and contempt against this Sacrament since it is manifest that the order custom and use of receiving it is much more ancient more authorized and more generally and religiously observed in the Church than that of frequent Confession of venial sins this practice becoming common only of late times and that of Confirmation having been generally received and holily observed from the beginning of the Church and in all latter Ages so that there hath never been found any one Saint pious Person or Christian living Christian-like who hath dared to reject it or who hath withdrawn himself voluntarily from it until our times wherein the Jesuits have begun to introduce this new Doctrine and new Practice of Devotion But it is easie to see by the Spirit and ordinary Carriage of the Jesuits that that which carries them on to aggravate with so great care the obligation and necessity of Confession and of the Communion and on the contrary to diminish that of Confirmation to push on Christians indifferently to these two first Sacraments and to keep them at distance from the last is thi◠that they are not Bishops to confirm men as well as they are Priests to confess and communicate and that in recommending with so much importunity Confession and the Communion they make themselves necessary and in diverting the Faithful from Confirmation they advance the design which they have to make Bishops unuseful and to withdraw the people from their guidance that they may be their Masters therein and reign in the Church without any hindrance ARTICLE II. Of the Eucharist and Penance What sort of Dispositions the Jesuits demand for these two Sacraments and that they teach men to prophane them by Sacriledge AS the Jesuits incline all sorts of persons indifferently to confess and communicate it behoves them that they may bring them on thereunto to make the practice and use of these two Sacraments very easie We have already seen in the Chapter of Penance that they have so sweetned the yoke of Confession that to confess well there needs in a manner nothing but to know how to speak and declare ones sins though in many cases they give liberty also to conceal one part and though one do accuse himself in general without specifying any in particular they oblige him not absolutely to repeat his Confession And as for their Penitents who confess frequently they permit them almost any thing even to deceive them and lye in Confession without believing they commit any great fault provided it be only in a matter of venial sin that if they have committed mortal sins which they are ashamed to discover they may by the advice of these directors confess them to other Priests to preserve their reputation with their ordinary Confessor They will also make their Penance as easie as their Confession if they please For if they be not in a humour to perform it that they may give them neither trouble nor scruple they will impose it on them only by way of counsel or without prescribing them any thing in particular they are content to say unto them Impono tibi pro poenitentia quiequid hodie vel hac hebdomada boni feceris vel mali passus fueris I impose upon you for Penance whatsoever good you shall do or evil you shall suffer this day or this week If a person over-run with crimes address himself to them and be troubled to make known the bottom of his Conscience and to discover the corruption of his Heart by declaring his wicked inclinations and habits they will not press on him in this point no more then to tell them in particular the number of his wicked desires impurities and secret crimes which move in his
take a false Oath even before a Judge without perjury ibid. Section II. Rules and Examples of Equivocation taken out of the Books of the Jesuits Escobar Filliutius Sanchez Pag. 55 Section III. When and on what occasions one may make use of Equivocations Sanchez Filliutius Pag. 57 Section IV. The Jesuits Method to frame Equivocations and to use them commodiously Filliutius Pag. 60 Section V. The Method of the same Jesuits to hinder their Equivocations from being ever discovered and that no person may be deprived of his liberty to make use of them Sanchez Pag. 62 The last Article A general proof that the Jesuitical Authors favour and nourish the lust of men in all things and the common principle from which they draw all that they say in favour of it Escobar Amicus Tolet Celot Posa Pag. 65 CHAPTER II. Of Sins in Habit or habitual Sins That there are scarcely any habitual Sins according to the Jesuits and that custom of sinning may make a man uncapable of sinning Sanchez Escobar Filliutius Layman Pag. 72 Chap. III. Of Sins of Ignorance That ignorance excuses sins committed without knowing them and even those which are committed afterwards And that there are properly no sins of ignorance according to the Jesuits Bauny Sanchez Filliutius Amicus Escobar Pag. 75 Chap. IV. Of good and bad Intention Pag. 84 Article I. That the Jesuits teach that we may fulfil the Commandments of God and the Church not only without intention but with an intent contrary and altogether criminal Escobar Lessius Layman Filliutius Celot Bauny ibid. Article II. That according to the Divinity of the Jesuits we sin not if we have not an intention to sin Sa Filliutius Sanchez Bauny Pag. 88 Chap. V. Of the Matter of Sin Pag. 94 Article I. That the Jesuits enhanse and debase as they please the goods of this world which are the usual object or matter of sin and so nourish vice and dispense with the Law of God Bauny Escobar Sa Sanchez ibid. Article II. The consequence and explication of the same subject by two examples and two sequels which the Jesuits draw from their Principles concerning the matter of sin 1. That God can no more than men command or forbid a matter that is in it self slight under the penalty of mortal sin 2. That he that hath a design and will to commit all venial sins if he were able sins only venially Sa Amicus Escobar Pag. 98 The Second Part of the First Book Of the external Principles of Sin THat the Jesuits nourish them that they may gratifie the passions of men and by consequence excite them to sin Pag. 103 Chap. I. Of the Maxims of Reason and humane Authority ibid. Article I. That the Jesuits make profession to follow novel Maxims and to contemn Tradition and Antiquity Posa Maldonat Escobar Azor Filliutius Reginaldus Pag. 104 Article II. Of the Doctrine of Probability Pag. 111 I. Point The principal Maxims of the Jesuits concerning Probability Pag. 112 Section I. The Opinions of Layman and of Azor concerning Probability ibid. Section II. The Opinions of other Jesuits conformable to the preceding for making all things probable and to give liberty to follow all sorts of Opinions Filliutius Escobar Pag. 120 Section III. The Opinion of Sanchez concerning the probability of Opinions Pag. 123 II. Point The pernicious consequences and effects of the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability Pag. 133 Section I. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability favours disorderly persons Libertines and Infidels Caramuel Escobar Petrus Michael de Sanroman Sanchez Pag. 134 Section II. That this Doctrine of Probability favours the Hereticks and nourisheth them in Heresie Celot Sanchez Filliutius Caramuel Pag. 137 Section III. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability destroys the Commands of God and the Church and teaches to clude all Laws divine and humane even that which forbids to do unto others that which we would not have done unto our selves Caramuel Escobar Tambourin Mascarenhas Pag. 142 Section IV. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability ruines entirely the Authority of the Church of Pastors and Superiors of all sorts Caramuel Pag. 150 Section V. That an opinion probable being once received all the Prelates of the Church and all the men in the World cannot hinder that it should be probable and safe in conscience according to the Jesuits Caramuel Celot Pag. 153 Article III. That the Divinity of the Jesuits is obsequious and mercenary Escobar Filliutius Amicus Celot Pag. 157 Article IV. That the Jesuits Divinity is subject to contradiction and change in opinions Dicastillus Tambourin Pag. 163 Chap. II. Of evil Customs That the Jesuits allow those which corruption hath introduced into all sorts of conditions and make use of them to excuse sins and vices Escobar Bauny Layman Pag. 168 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 Sanchez Bauny Layman Escobar Pag. 171 An Abridgment of the Doctrine of the Jesuits about the next occasions of sin Pag. 177 The last Chapter Of the Accessories of Sin Tambourin Pag. 178 The Second Book Of the Inward and Outward Remedies of Sin The First Part. Of the Inward Remedies of Sin CHap. I. Of the Grace of Jesus Christ Pag. 185 Article I. That the Jesuits destroy the Grace of Jesus Christ by their Divinity Celot Amicus Escobar ibid. Article II. That Jesus Christ might have sinned might have been subject unto vices might have fallen into errour and folly according to the Jesuits Divinity Amicus Pag. 189 Chap. II. Of Repentance Pag. 194 Article I. Of Sorrow for Sin That according to the Jesuits we may be justified by the Sacrament of Penance by a natural sorrow and even without any true sorrow for sin Filliutius Amicus Sa Escobar Bauny Pag. 195 The Sum Of the Doctrine of the Jesuits related in this Chapter concerning the sorrow which is necessary to blot out sins in the Sacrament of Penance Pag. 201 Article II. Of Confession and Accusation of Sins That the Jesuits do destroy the integrity thereof Layman Bauny Filliutius Escobar Sa. Pag. 202 Article III. Of Absolution That the Jesuits make it depend on the Opinion and the Will of the Penitent rather than the disposition and judgment of the Confessor Sa Layman Amicus Filliutius Sanchez Bauny Pag. 211 Article IV. Of Satisfaction That the Divinity of the Jesuits destroys this part of Penance Pag. 217 Article V. Rules of Conduct for a Confessor according to the Jesuits Pag. 223 I. Point Rules to examine Penitents according to the Jesuits Bauny Filliutius Dicastillus Tambourin Escobar ibid. II. Point Of the Advice which a Confessor ought to give his Penitent according to the Jesuits Escobar Amicus Filliutius Tambourin Petrus Michael de Sanroman Pag. 225 III. Point Of the inward disposition of the Penitent and of sorrow for sin according to the Jesuits Filliutius Tambourin Sa Bauny Dicastillus Pag. 226
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
thence by stronger reason that we are not bound thereunto upon any other occasion And by consequence the obligation to give alms is entirely abolished in all sorts of persons times and occasions But Lessius doth yet farther discover this pernicious Doctrine of his Company adding that even then when this so extream and rare necessity doth happen no person is particularly obliged to provide against it for that the obligation to assist our neighbour in this estate of extream necessity being general and common to all those who have means to do it every one may put it off from himself unto others in such manner that we cannot say that this man or that man in particular is obliged thereunto quae rarius ita contingit ut hunc vel illum in particulari graviter obliget That is to say that the Commandment to assist our neighbour in extream necessity is general to all those who are of ability but it doth ordinarily oblige none in particular And so according to Lessius Divinity a poor man being in entremity may dye of hunger in the view of many persons who may and ought assist him whilst they expect and attend one another no one of them being particularly bound to satisfie an obligation which is common unto them all together And it is from this Principle that he concludes 1 Fortè inter Christianos pauci sunt qui propter defectum operum misericordiae corporalium damnentur That it is apparent that amongst Christians there are few who shall be damned for failing to exercise the works of corporal mercy notwithstanding that the Scripture in divers places and Jesus Christ in the Gospel testifie expresly that the greatest part of men and even of Christians shall be damned for not giving alms and assisting their neighbour in his necessities For having declared that there shall be few Elect and few saved even amongst those that are called that is amongst Christians he declares also that in condemning them at the day of Judgment he will only reprove them for the default in alms and works of mercy saying unto them 2 Discedite à me maledicti in ignem aeternum qui paraâ—us est diabolo Angelis ejus 〈◊〉 â—ivi enim non dedistis mihi manducare sitivi non dedistis mihi bibere c Mat. 25. v. 41. Depart from me ye cursed into eternal fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels because I was hungry and you gave me not to eat I was thirsty and ye gave me not to drink Lessius observed this difficulty and he represents and objects it to himself but a consideration so powerful taken from the express word of Jesus Christ and from the sentence of eternal death which shall be pronounced against those who shall fail of performing the works of mercy was not sufficient to divert him from his opinion For without troubling himself with what Jesus Christ saith he replies in a way and expression which contains more of contempt than respect due unto the Word of God See here his terms 3 Nâ—c resert quod Dominus Matth. 25. formam judicii describens meminerit potius operum misericordiae quam aliorum id enim secit ut homines praesertim plebeios qui ad majora spiritualia parum sunt comparati in hac vita ad ea excitaret Haec autem ratio cessat in extremo judicio quia tunc komines nec erunt amplius ad opera misericordiae excitandi Lessiâ—… ibid. It is to no purpose to alledge that our Lord in the 25. Chapter of S. Matthew representing the form of the last Judgment speaks rather of works of mercy than of others For he doth it only to stir up men and particularly those of the common sort who are not capable to comprehend spiritual things to exercise these good works in this life Now this reason cannot have place in the last Judgment because then there will be no need to stir up men unto works of mercy He declares plainly that the Gospel is false and speaks false things to deceive the people and ignorant For if it be lawful to have this opinion of what Jesus Christ himself saith concerning his last Judgment and the circumstances and the words of that Judgment which he will pronounce concerning mens eternal life and death it will by stronger reason be lawful to have the same thoughts of other places of the Gospel which are not so important and generally of all since one cannot be more true than another So we may clude the whole Word of God when we meet therein any thing that doth not agree with our opinions and we shall give occasion particularly in this Subject to those who will conceive with Origen that the pains of the damned shall not be eternal to say that Jesus Christ hath not said that they shall be so but only to divert men from sin and to cause them to fear by proposing unto them infinite punishments according as this Jesuit saith that he neither threatens nor condemns those who fail to do works of mercy but only to intimidate men and particularly those of the Commonalty and to stir them up to employ themselves therein being incapable of other more elevated actions Being all good works are comprised and contained in alms fasting and prayer according to the Scripture it seems that having here treated particularly of alms I ought also to speak of fasting and of prayer because I have said that the Jesuits destroy and corrupt all good works in general But because I have spoken expresly of Fasting in the explication of the Commandments of the Church of Supplication in the Chapter of Prayer and also in that of Ecclesiastick Duties and the obligation which we have to say Divine Service I will be content to send the Reader thither to avoid tediousness and repetitions In reading those places we may find that the Jesuits are no less favourable to mens effeminacy than to their interests and that they are as large and indulgent in freeing them from all the pains of fasting and prayer as in exempting them from the obligation of giving their goods and doing alms testifying by this so obsequious Doctrine and so base and loose a conduct that all their study and care in a manner tends to the establishment of the Kingdom of Lust by favouring the corrupt passions and inclinations of men and in consequence thereof to destroy true Christian piety both in its fountain which is Charity and in its effects and fruits which are good Works CHAPTER V. Of the Sacraments AS the principal Questions which respect the Sacraments depend on the Institution of God and the Church and ought by consequence be resolved by Authority and Tradition the Jesuits who follow most usually their own sense and reason both in Divinity and Philosophy make almost as many faults as steps in this matter My design is not as I have already declared to report generally all their Errours no more than
with joy and those who shall adhere to them through passion or interest may be brought to testifie the horrour they have conceived against them by the renunciation which they shall make of them or at least by the silence they shall keep and wherein they shall bury them so as neither to hold nor teach them any more for the future But if they shall not draw hence the fruit which is desired and they persist both the one and the other to maintain the same Maxims they testifie openly hereby that they also admit all the consequences whereof they cannot be ignorant any longer And by consequence they shall make themselves responsible for all the consequences and all the unhappy effects which are therefrom inseparable And if after all this they make an out-cry in the world and hold themselves offended when such disorders are imputed to them and when they are declared the Authors and Cherishers of these Irregularities of Corruption of Libertinism which are spread over all conditions in these last times they cannot attribute it to any other than themselves because they are reproached with nothing but what they have avowed themselves in that they would not disavow it after it hath been represented unto them and they have been condemned by the Church The Faithful shall at least draw hence this advantage that they may hereby discover the false Prophets and false Pastors from the good and true ones and take heed of those who under a pretence of piety do corrupt piety it self seducing simple and innocent Souls so far as to endeavour to hale them out of the bosom of their true and lawful Pastors and to turn them away from their conduct and engage them in horrible precipices Reasons wherefore we take the Morals of the Jesuits for the Subject of this Book rather than those of other Casuists THat I produce in this Work no other Authors than those of the Society of the Jesuits is not through any passion towards them or toward others For though I speak not of other Casuists yet do I not neglect them entirely as neither do I approve them nor excuse them in their opinions which they have common with the Jesuits and which are conformable to those which I reprove But as he who would cut down a Tree amuses not himself in cutting off the branches one after another but betakes himself to its body and root which being cut the branches must necessarily fall and so I believe that destroying the pernicious Doctrine of the Jesuits touching Manners and Cases of Conscience I overturn all at once whatsoever there is conformable unto it amongst the new Casuists because they are in a manner all their Disciples having learned that which they say in their Schools or in their Books After all this the Jesuits declare themselves the Masters of this sort of new Learning and they give this name to their principal Authors whom they would have pass for the Doctors and Masters of the whole World And they would even that they might assure themselves of the possession of these Titles eject the holy Fathers therefrom endeavouring to hinder men from hearing them from following them and from imitating the example and holiness of their lives by this pernicious Maxime which they have invented and established as a Principle of their Divinity that it is not the ancient Fathers but the new Divines and Casuists of these times who must be taken for the Rule of Manners and Christian life It is with the same Spirit that did testifie so great an esteem for Novelty they profess to follow it and many amongst them as Posa Celot have taken in hand to defend it to praise it and to make Apologies for it Quae circa fidem emergunt difficultates consons veteribus sancienda quae vero circa mores homine Christiano dignos à novetiis scriptoribus Reginald Praesat ad lect And hereby without doubt they designed to make the presumption pass for current that they borrowed nothing at all from others and especially nothing from the Ancients but that they produced their Opinions themselves and found them in their own heads and that they have no other Rule for their conduct and their knowledge but their own sense and humane reason and not the Authority of the Saints and that being as it were Independents they ought not to pass for Children of the Fathers and for Disciples of the holy Doctors but Masters of Novelties amongst the Authors of these times But although they think hereby to exalt their Doctrine and to acquire more honour unto it they disgrace and ruine it themselves in effect because that Novelty hath always been blamed as a mark of Errour not only by the Catholicks but also by the Hereticks who have always affected and attempted to make people believe that their Doctrine as well as their Religion were ancient so that there were never any found who would suffer themselves to be reproached much less who would boast themselves to advance new Maxims as is to be seen in the Example of the Lutherans and Calvinists who vaunt themselves though falsly to follow the Doctrine of the ancient Church and of the Disciples of Jesus Christ and hold it for a great injury to be called Innovators though indeed they be such The Jesuits on the contrary seem to affect this odious Title since they despising the Authority of the holy Fathers and renouncing the Doctrine of the Ancients prefer Novelty before them and make open profession to follow and invent new Opinions which none had over produced before them as is manifestly seen in the proper declaration of Molina Posa Amicus Maldonat and as may easily be proved by many other Casuists of the Society As they are the chief Masters in this novel Science so they are sollicitous to make themselves many Disciples who in time becoming Masters make up a Body so puissant and an Assembly of probable Doctors so numerous that it would be hard to find so many in all other Societies taken altogether So that whether we consider the Votes or compute them they will still prevail above all others and remain the sole Arbiters and Masters of this new Morality And the better to maintain themselves for ever in this advantage above other Casuists and novel Doctors knowing that Empire and Dominion amongst the Learned as well as amongst the Vulgar is supported by union and ruined by division they are expresly ordered by their Superiors to agree in the same opinions and to maintain them all at least as probable and above all when they are advanced by some of the Heads and principal Authors of the Society and they believe that the interest and honour of their whole Body is in question This Conspiration in the same Opinions whereto the Glory of the Society hath engaged them does hold them fastned thereto with so much obstinacy that no Consideration nor Authority whatsoever no not even of the Church can oblige them to acquit
IV. Point Rules for imposing Penance or Satisfaction according to the Jesuits Escobar Bauny Filliutius Pag. 227 V. Point Rules of the same Jesuits for giving Absolution Filliutius Sa Bauny Sanchez Pag. 228 VI. Point The Jesuits advice to Penitents to make the yoke of Confession sweet and easie Bauny Escobar Sa Layman Amicus Pag. 229 Chap. III. Of Prayer That the Jesuits destroy Prayer in teaching that the Laity and the Ecclesiasticks themselves may satisfie their obligation to Prayer by praying without attention without reverence and even with voluntary distraction and diverting themselves with all sorts of wicked thoughts Filliutius Escobar Coninck Bauny Pag. 231 Chap. IV. Of good Works That the Jesuits Maxims destroy them Escobar Tolet Sa Lessius Pag. 238 Chap. V. Of the Sacraments Pag. 244 Article I. Of Baptism and Confirmation ibid. I. Point That the Jesuits take away the necessity of Baptism and destroy the dispositions required thereto Escobar Tambourin ibid. II. Point That the Jesuits divert the Faithful from Confirmation by discharging them from the obligation to receive it Filliutius Escobar Mascarenhas Pag. 246 Article II. Of the Eucharist and Penance What sort of dispositions the Jesuits demand for these two Sacraments and that they teach men to prophane them by sacriledge Filliutius Mascharenhas Pag. 251 Article III. Of the Sacrament of Marriage Tambourin Dicastillus Pag. 256 Article IV. Of them who administer the Sacraments That the Jesuits permit Priests to administer the Sacraments to say Mass and to preach principally for vain-glory or lucre of money and in an estate of mortal sin Filliutius Sa Amicus Sanchez Pag. 260 The Second Part of the Second Book Of the Outward Remedies of Sin THat the Divinity of the Iesuits abolishes or corrupts them Pag. 266 Chap. I. Of the Corruption of Scripture That the Iesuits corrupt the Scriptures divers ways Celot Coninck Sirmond Lessius Pag. 267 Chap. II. Of the Commandments of God Pag. 274 Article I. Of the Commandment which is that of Love and Charity ibid. I. Point Of the Command to love God ibid. Section I. That there is no Command to love God according to the Maxims of the Iesuits Divinity Sirmond Pag. 275 Section II. That according to Father Sirmond the Gospel speaks hardly any thing at all of divine Love and Charity and that Jesus Christ hath not much recommended it Pag. 276 Section III. The mixture and agreement of Self-love with the Charity invented by Father Sirmond the Jesuit Pag. 278 Section IV. The changing and transforming of Charity into Self-love by Father Sirmond Pag. 279 II. Point That the Jesuits by destroying Charity which man oweth unto God destroy also that which be owes himself Filliutius Amicus Molina Celot Sa. Pag. 280 The Sum Of the Doctrine of the Jesuits concerning the Love of Charity which a man owes unto God and to himself Pag. 285 III. Point Of the Command to love our Neighbour that the Jesuits utterly destroy it Bauny Sa Amicus Pag. 286 IV. Point That the Jesuits allow of Magick and Witchcraft Tambourin Sancius Pag. 289 Article II. Thou shalt not swear by God in vain That the Jesuits destroy this Commandment by diminishing excusing weakning the sins of Swearing and Blaspheming Bauny Escobar Sanchez Filliutius Pag. 291 Article III. Of the Commandment of God HONOUR THY FATHER AND THY MOTHER Dicastillus Tambourin Pag. 297 Article IV. Of the Command of God THOU SHALT NOT KILL That the Jesuits absolutely overthrow this Commandment and authorize all sorts of Murders Lessius Molina Pag. 302 I Point Lessius his Opinion concerning Murder Pag. 303 Section I. How far he enlargeth the permission of Killing in defence of his own life that he holds that a Priest at the Altar may break off the Sacrifice to kill him who assails him ibid. Section II. That according to Lessius it is lawful to kill in defence of our Honour Pag. 304 Section III. That it is lawful to kill in defence of ones Goods according to Lessius Pag. 306 II. Point The Opinions of Amicus concerning Murder respecting the Religious That he permits them to kill in defence of their Honour him who impeaches them of false Crimes or only threatens to discover those they have indeed committed Pag. 312 III. Point The Opinions of other Jesuits concerning Murder Molina Vasquez Filliutius Pag. 317 IV. Point The Opinion of Escobar concerning Murder Pag. 324 V. Point The Conformity of the Jesuits who in our days have taught in their Colledges with the more Ancient in the Doctrine of Murder Pag. 328 Article V. Of Vncleanness which the Jesuits allow against the Command of God and natural Reason Layman Lessius Tolet Sa Escobar Pag. 332 Article VI. Of Theft That the Jesuits authorize it and abolish the Commandment of God which forbids it Sa Escobar Amicus Bauny Layman Pag. 340 Article VII THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESSE Dicastillus Tambourin Pag. 344 Chap. III. Of the Commandments of the Church Pag. 347 Article I. Of the Sanctification of Festivals Pag. 348 I. Point Section I. That the Jesuits despise the Authority of the Church and destroy the Commandment by which it forbids to work on Feast-days Layman Escobar Filliutius ibid. Section II. Expedients which the Jesuits propose to elude the Commandment which forbids working on Feast-days Escobar Sa Filliutius Pag. 352 II. Point Section I. That for the Sanctification of the Lords-day it suffices according to the Jesuits to bear one low Mass that we may hear it where we will the whole or part and at as many parcels as we please Layman Tambourin Dicastillus Coninck Azor Tolet Escobar Pag. 355 Section II. That according to the Jesuits the Precept of hearing Mass may be satisfied by hearing them without internal Devotion Attention Intention even with an express intent not to satisfie and whilst we entertain our selves alone or with others with other discourse and wicked and dishonest thoughts Coninck Azor Tambourin Dicastillus Filliutius Celot Pag. 360 Article II. Of Fasting and the Commandment to Fast Pag. 364 I. Point That according to the Jesuits Divinity we may prevent the hour of Repast make it as long and great as we please eat more than on another day and break out into all excess and intemperance without breaking our Fast Escobar Tambourin Tolet Sanchez Azor Bauny ibid. 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 Pag. 368 III. Point That according to the Jesuits Dispensations which they give in Fasting hardly any person is obliged to fast Layman Bauny Escobar Sa. Pag. 371 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 Sa Escobar Filliutius Amicus Celot Coninck
its matter and subject THE SECOND PART OF THE FIRST BOOK Of the eternal principles of Sin That the Jesuits nourish them that they may gratifie the passions of men and by consequence excite them to Sin HItherto we have shewn that the Jesuits nourish sin by nourishing men in passions in evil habits and in vices in Ignorance and in a false pretence of good intentions wherewith they commonly shelter themselves which are as it were the Fountains and the internal principles of Sin I must now make it appear that they favour no less the outward principles of the same sin which are 1. Humaine reason and authority which furnish arms and expedients to defend them 2. With customs which produce examples to support them 3. The next occasions which draw men to them cause them to fall into them and retain them in them We will treat of every one of these outward principles of sin apart as we have done of the inward CHAP. I. Of the maximes of reason and humane authority FAith is not less elevated above reason then reason is above sense and it is no less disorder to regulate the lives of Christians who ought to live by Faith by the maximes of humane reason and much less of reason corrupted as it now is by sin then to desire to judge spiritual things by sense This were to transform men into Beasts and to subject them to follow their senses in the regulation of their life and to treat Christians like Heathens to give them no other rule for their conversations and actions then the maximes of Philosophie and humane reason Yet this is it which the Jesuits have done and all those who read their Divinity and principally that which treats of manners will find therein no other principles in a manner but those of the lowest Philosophie and humane reason and that corrupted They hardly know what it is to cite Scripture or Councils and if they rehearse any passages of the Holy Fathers it is for the most part for form onely or to resute them rather then to use them for foundations or solid proofs of their opinions in relying on the authority of these great men who have advanced nothing of themselves in points of consequence which belong to Faith or manners which they had not taken from those who went before them in the Church and which came not originally from the Apostles and from Jesus Christ by the Tradition of the Church But the Jesuits far enough from this conduct make profession to invent and to speak things of themselves to follow novelty to make every thing probable to leave to the ingenious to choose in all opinions Whence it comes that making use sometimes of one sometimes of another they accommodate themselves easily to the humours of all the world and have wherewith to content all how contrary soever they can be But this also makes them fall many times into contradictions which are inevitable for them who have no other rule but their own proper sence These are the things which I shall handle in this Chapter to shew what a wound they have given unto Divinity and by consequence thereof to good manners in substituting reason into the place of faith and particular and novel opinions to that of antiquity and the tradition of the Fathers I shall make apparent 1. That their Divinity is novel and that they make profession to follow novelty 2. That every thing in it is probable and that they will have the liberty to follow all sorts of opinions 3 That their School is venal and wholly complaisant to the world and that they will have wherewith to content all sorts of persons in answering every one according to his desire 4. That it is full of contradictions I will treat every one of these points severally dividing this Chapter into so many Articles ARTICLE I. The Jesuits make profession to follow novel maximes and to contemn tradition and antiquity NOvelty hath always been odious in the Church if at any time it were objected unto the Saints they did always defend themselves from it as from a calumny and have had an extream care to advance nothing in the Church which they had not learned in the Church it self so far that they have believed that it was no lesse crime to introduce or receive new Doctrines then to make or adore Idols This is the judgement of Saint Augustin upon these words of the 80. Psalm Non erit tibi Deus recens where he saith that a Deus recens aut lapis aut phantasma est S. August in Ps 80. this new God is an Image of stone or a false imagination And a little after he unfoldeth his thoughts more at large in these words b Non dixit à te quasi simulachrum forinsecus adhibitum sed in te in corde tuo in imagine phantasmatis tui in deceptione â—rroris tui tecum portabis Deum tuum recentem manens vetustus Ibid. it is not said thou shalt have no new God without thee as if he would onely mark the outward and visible forms but he saith you shall not have a new God within your selves That is to say you shall not bear within your hearts in your imaginations in the illusion of your errour a new God contining your selves old and corrupt All novel opinions contrary to the Tradition and ancient belief of our Fathers are to speak properly nothing but phantasmes imaginations and errours these are as it were so many Idols which some would introduce into the Church which they would put into the place of Divine truth which at once is the rule of our life the object of our Faith and of our adoration And as those who make Idols those who sell and those who buy them to adore them are all equally Idolaters so in the same manner those who invent novel opinions those who teach them and those who follow them are all complices of the same fault and though these last may be lesse guilty and are more to be lamented then the others because they do sin with more ignorance and wilder themselves by following blind guides yet they all find themselves involved in the same misery and subject to the same condemnation pronounced by the Fathers and by the Scripture who condemn this sin and forbid it as a sort of Idolatry According to these principles of the Scripture and the language of the Prophet and of God himself we may say there are so many Idolaters as there are writers at this day amongst the Jesuits there being none of them in a manner who are not jealous of their own proper thoughts and who have not introduced into Divinity some novel opinion or who do not make profession to maintain and teach some which have been introduced by their Fraternity to the prejudice of the ancients who have been always received and followed in the Church until these last times Poza hath composed a great volumn which he hath intitled Elucidarium
Deiparae in which there will be found very little if all that be thrown out which he hath invented himself It had need to be copied out in a manner whole and entire to make appear all the ridiculous and extravagant things that it contains and all the excesses and errours into which he is fallen pursuing his own thoughts and imaginations having not taken so much care to given the Verigin true praises as to produce new and extraordinary which even in this do dishonour her and cannot be pleasing to her Because the praises which are to be given to Saints as well as the honour which we are to render unto God himself ought not to be founded on any thing but truth I will onely rehearse some of the most considerable places of this Author He maintains confidently that Saint Anne and Saint Joachim were sanctified from the wombs of their Mothers and that there is more reason to attribute to them this priviledge then to Jeremy and Saint John Baptist He confesses d Nullus est proâ—me in asseâ—tione hac sed neque contra me cum non sit hacterus disputata Peza in Eâ—ucidarioâ— 2. tr 8. c. 3. p. 547. that there are no persons that are for him or against him in this proposition because none have spoken of it before himself If there be no Author for him they are all against him and the silence of the Saints and all the Doctors that were before him is a manifest condemnation of his presumption and of his rashness in so declaring himself an innovator in an unheard of novelty in the Church in a matter of Religion Molina hath done the same thing where he hath gloried to have invented the middle knowledge in the matter of Grace and of Predestination with such insolence that he is not affraid to say that if it had been known in the first ages of the Church the heresie of the Pelagians possibly had never risen Maldonat who is one of the Commentators on Scripture whom they esteem doth often declare himself the Author of new sences which he gives the Word of God against the consent even of the Fathers many times in his books we meet such expressions as these e 〈◊〉 habere Antorem qui na sâ—ntret ..... â—ames qur quot ligisse me memini â—…oâ—…s sic explicâ—nt ego autem alâ—…er sentio Malden I would find some Author who was of this opinion or all Authors whom I remember to have read expound this text in this manner but I expound it otherwise Which is a manifest contempt of the Council of Trent which forbids to expound Scripture against the consent of the Fathers and an imitation of the language of Calvin and other Hereticks renouncing the tradition of the Holy Fathers and all the antiquity of the Church If Escobar could have condemned this confidence of his Fraternity he would have condemned them onely of venial sin f Novas opinio nes novas vestes exponere vâ—nialis tantùm culpâ— est Escob â—r 2. exam 2. n. 10. p. 291. Qaia ejusmodi inventione quis gestit aliorum laudem captare Ibid. To introduce saith he rovel opinions and new sorts of habits into the Church is onely a venial sin He hath cause to talk of new opinions as of new fashions of Garments for in the new Divinity of the Jesuits who hold all things probable there needs no more reason to quit an ancient opinion then to change the fashion of apparel and if there be any ill in it it is very small and that too must come from some peculiar circumstance as from vanity or ambition Though this censure of Escobar be very gentle Molina and Maldonat as more ancient and more considerable in the Society then he will not submit thereunto and Poza is so far from acknowledging that there is any ill in inventing new opinions that he had a design in his Book not to produce therein any other then the inventions and imaginations of his own mind and for this reason in the entrance and preface he makes an Apology for novelty in which he hath forgotten nothing that he believed might be of use to make it recommendable and to give it admission as well into the Church as into the World imploying for this purpose authority examples and reasons He rehearses many passages out of Seneca saying g Patet omaibus veritas noadum est occupata qui â—nâ—e nos fueruut non domini sed duces fuerunt multum ex illa futuris relictum est Seneca Ep. 33. Dum unusquisque mavult credere quam judicare numquam de vita judicatur semper creditur that truth is open exposed to all the World that none have yet taken possession thereof that they who were before us were our guides but we are not therefore their slaves that there remains yet enough for those who come after us that every one liking better to believe then judge they are always content to believe and never judge at all how they ought to live And a little after h Non alligo me ad aliquem ex Stoicis proceribus est mihi censendi jus Itaque aliquem jubebo sententiam dividere de beata vita I addict not my self to any one in particular of these great Stoical Philosophers I have a right to judge them and to give my advice upon them This is the cause why some times I follow the opinion of one and sometimes I change something in the judgement of another It is clear that these passages go to establish a right for reason above authority which had been tolerable in an Heathen who had no other guide but Reason and who speaks of questions and things which cannot be regulated but by Reason But a Christian a Monk a man who interposes himself to write in the Church in matters of Faith for the instruction and edification of the faithful to make use of the maximes and terms of a Pagan to ruine the obedience of Faith and the tradition which is one of its principal foundations staving off the Faithful from the submission which they owe to the Word of God and the authority of the Holy Fathers is a thing unsufferable in the Church of God this is almost to turn it Pagan and to give every one a liberty to opine in matters of Religion as the Heathen Philosophers did in matters of science and morality wherein they followed their senses onely and proper thoughts He alledges also some passages of Catholick Authors as that same of Tertullian i Dominus noster Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem nominavit Tertull. Our Lord Jesus Christ said that he was the truth and not the custom And this other of Lactantius k Sapicntiam sibi adimuut qui sine ullo judicio invent a majorum probant ab aliis pecudum more ducuntur Sed hoc cos fallit quod majorum nomine posite non putant fieri posse ut ipsi plus
sapiant quia minores vocantur Lactant. lib. 2 divin instit c. 8. These deprive themselves of wisdom who suffer themselves to be led by others like Beasts receiving without discerning all that which the ancients have invented That Which deceives them is the name of Ancestors Imagining that they cannot be Wiser then they because they come after them and because these are called neoteriques And in the same place l Deus dedit omnibus pro virili portionem sapientiae nec quia nos illi temporibus sapientia quoque antecesserunt Quia si omnibus aequaliter datur occupari ab antecedentibus non potest Ibid. God hath given wisdom to every man according to his capacity and those who precede us in time do not therefore exceed us in wisdom For being it is given indifferently to all men they who came first cannot by their possession eject others from it He considered not when he alledged these passages that what these Authors say is for reproof of those who suffer themselves to be carried with humane customs and traditions to the prejudice of manifest truth or who are too credulous and timorous in the inquiry after natural things which depend on reason and that they speak not of matters of Faith and Religion such as those are which he handles in his Book But if he have perceived this truth he abuses the authority of these great personages applying it against their sence and using it without reason to justifie a thing quite remote from their thoughts and contrary to their judgements and from that of all antiquity which were easie to be made appear if it were not a thing too remote from my subject He alledges also these words which he attributes to the Council of Constantinople m Beatus qui prosert verbum inauditum id est novum Syn. Const art 1. Happy is that man who produces an unheard word that is a now one Finally he cites those words of the holy Scripture n Omnis scriba doctus similis est patrifamilias qui profert de thesauro suo nova vettra Matth. 13. ver 53. every learned Doctor is like unto a Father of a Family who brings out of his treasure things new and old I passe by this last passage of the Gospel of Saint Matthew which he abuseth manifestly against the sence of the Son of God and that of all interpreters But I cannot passe over the remarkable falsity and visible corruption of the pretended words of the Council of Constantinople For the true words of the Council are Beatus qui profert verbum in auditum obedientium Blessed is he who utters a word into obedient ears From which he first cuts off the word obedientium obedient Afterwards he joins two words into one and instead of in auditum in to the hearing which were the Councils words he makes it say inauditum unheard In the third place adding corruption of sence unto falsification of words he saith that this word inauditum signifies new But there is no cause to marvel that the desire of novelty leads to falsity and consequently to errours and heresies Azor and after him Filliutius who doth nothing in effect but follow him speak also very advantagiously for novelty saying generally that the Apostolical Traditions are of humane right and that by consequence they may be changed o Ex quo officitur ut traditiones divinae ad â—us divinum specteat ac proinde sunt immutabiles Apostolicae vero ad jus humanum propterea Ecclesiae authoritate mut abiles Azor Instit mor. l. 8. c. 4. q. 4. pag. 743. Filliutius tom 2. tr 22. c. 1. n. 11. p. 65. Divine Traditions saith Azor appertain to Divine right and by consequence they are immutable but the Traditions of the Apostles are humane Laws and for that cause the Churoh may change them He expounds a little above what he means by Divine and Apostolical Traditions in these terms p Divinae traditiones sunt quaâ— ab ipsius Christi ore Apostoli acceperunt vel quas Spiritu Sancto dictante vel gubernante vel Christo Domino imperante promulgarunt Apostolicae sunt qu as ipsi Apostoli tanquam Ecclesiae Praelati Doctores magistri recto es instituerunt Azor. Ibid. Divine Traditions are those which the Apostles have learned from the mouth of Jesus Christ or which the Holy Ghost hath dictated and they have written by his Command or by that of Jesus Christ The Traditions of the Apostles are those which the Apostles have instituted in the quality of Prelats Doctors Tutors and Governours of the Church In such manner that according to them the Traditions of the Apostles are no other then the Inventions of the Apostles which they ordained of themselves and of their own proper motion without having learned them of Jesus Christ or the Holy Spirit This is no more then his words clearly signifie and the division he makes suffers not any other sence to be given them since he opposes those Traditions which the Apostles have instituted of themselves quas ipsi Apostoli instituerunt to those which they have received from the mouth of Jesus Christ and from those which the Holy Ghost taught them and which he established by their Ministry quas ab ipsius Christi ore Apostoli receperunt vel quas Spiritu Sancto dictante jubente vel Christo Domino imperante promulgarunt He makes then of these two sorts of Traditions as it were two opposite members dividing Traditions into Divine and Humane or Apostolical He calls the first Divine because they draw their original from God and his Spirit who hath instituted them the Apostles having onely published them by his motion and order he affirms that the other are humane and of humane right ad jus humanum spectant because according to him they proceed from an humane spirit and not from Gods and that the Apostles who were men instituted them and are become their Fathers and Authors If it be true as he faith that the Apostles have made these rules in the Church whether concerning faith or manners and that they have not received them from Jesus Christ nor the Holy Ghost he hath reason to say that the constitutions and traditions which he terms Apostolical are onely of humane right because they take their original and their authority from the spirit of man and which by consequence may be changed by men and it may follow also from the same principle that they are subject unto errour the spirit of a man how holy soever it be may always deceive him when he is the Author and original of his thoughts and actions It will follow thence also that the Apostles have governed the Church as Princes and Politicians govern their estates and their common wealths by their wit and reason It would follow likewise that the Church is not governed by the Spirit of Jesus Christ being they who first governed it and
who are the first modules to all them that followed in that rule had no other then an humane conduct in instituting and establishing of themselves that which seemed unto them just and reasonable not as instruments animated by Jesus Christ but as the Authors and principals thereof following their own sences and thoughts The Jesuits perhaps will not be much troubled to agree to all those thing which are common enough in their Society and maintained by their most famous Writers who teach that the Laws of the Church are no other then humane that its power and conduct extends onely to the outward man and that the Church it self is onely a politick body as shall be proved elsewhere when we come to make known how pernicious these maximes are to all Religion and overturn the power and authority of the Church After Azor had spoken so basely and so unworthily of the Apostles and Apostolical constitutions we need not think that strange which he saith against the Ancients and Fathers of the Church and would have the opinions of the new writers of these times to have as much weight and credit as they so that if the Fathers sometimes prevail with them against the new Authors the new Authors do as often and more frequently prevail over the Fathers It is in the second Book of his Moral Institutions where after he had demanded q Prime quaeritur an opinio probabilior existimetur ita ut morito praeserri debeat co quod sit antiquorum sententia altera sit recentiorum whether we ought to hold an opinion more probable because it is from the ancient Fathers or Whether for this reason it ought to be preferred before that of the moderns He answers in these terms r Respondâ—o quondâ— revera opiniones sunt pares saepe antiquorum opinio juniorum sententiae praefeatur non tamen lege aut ratione efficaci compellimur ad cam semper anteferendam Inst Moral l. 2. c. 17. q. 1. p. 127. when the opinions are equal themselves those of the ancients are commonly preferred before new writers but there is neither law nor reason sufficient to oblige us to preferre them always This is no great honour to the Fathers to say that we may preferre their opinions before those of modern Authors when the reasons appear equal on both sides since as much may be said of all sorts of Writers following the Jesuits rule of probability But the contempt is more manifest in that which he adds that even in this case there is no obligation to subject our judgements to the opinions of the Holy Doctors of the Church who in important affairs say nothing but what they learned of it and that every one hath liberty to follow them or not to follow them so it shall be lawful to follow the moderns always and never to follow the Fathers when the reasons of the moderns are as likely as those of the Fathers which will easily appear so to those who judge by humane sense and natural reason rather then by the light of Faith as the Casuists of these times and the people of the world commonly do It will also be lawful to preferre the moderns before the Ancients even when the ancients are grounded on more strong and solid reasons according to that maxime of the Jesuits who say that we may prefer an opinion which is lesse before another which is more probable For this is an infallible consequence of this maxime joyned to that other which will have the Fathers and their opinions considered no otherwise then by reason and conformity to humane sense as the Parliament of Paris considers the Laws and opinions of the ancient Roman Lawyers or rather as the hereticks consider the holy Fathers to whom even they render a little more honour and respect in appearance saying that they are to be judged not by reason as all these new Doctors but by the Scriptures though they regard not Scripture but according to their reason and the preoccupation of their spirits But they both agree in the over throw they give the authority of the Fathers subjecting them to their reason and their fancy and giving them onely as much force as they please following the custom of all those who impugn the truths and most assured and inviolable rules of antiquity and Religion Reginaldus handling the same question whether the ancients or the moderns are rather to be believed when they are found in contrary opinions He distinguishes upon the Point saying that Å¿ Quae cirta sidem emergunt difficultates eae funt à veteribus bauriendae quoe vere circa mores homine Christiano dignâ—s à novitiis scriptoribus Reginald praefat ad Lect. in resolving difficulties that arise about faith the right thereof is to be drawn from the ancients but those which regard manners and the life of Christians are to be taken from the modern writers It is ordinary with those who have no right to a thing for which they contest unjustly to endeavour to have it divided to the end that they may have at least one half when they cannot carry all for themselves It was by this rule that Solomon knew that of the two women who disputed in his presence in the case of the Infant either pretending that it belonged to her that she who would have had it cut asunder in the middle ought to have none of it and was not the true Mother So the Jesuits cannot better testifie that they are deprived of truth then by their consenting to divide it in such manner that one half should be to the ancients and the other half to the moderns that is themselves But if it belong to the ancients to determine on questions which arise about matters of Faith it must needs be that they also decide difficult matters of conscience and manners since the faithful ought to live by Faith and if we ought to take from the moderns the rules of manners and not of faith we must have another rule of life given us then faith if faith be not the source and measure of good works nor the principle of Christian life Celot undertaking to defend the Casuists of his company testifies that Reginaldus hath done as he said and having taught moral Divinity twenty years he always made profession to follow the opinions of the newest Authors quidem recentiorum Which he approves and confirms relating that very passage of the Author which we have just now cited in the same terms as we have produced them Celot l. 8. c. 16. p. 714. Quia quae circa fidem emergunt difficultates sunt a veteribus hauriendae quae vero circa mores homine Christiano dignos a novitiis Scriptoribus Which shews that this wicked DOctrine is not peculiar to one or two but comes from the genius of the Society In whose name this Author wrote who seemeth desirous to separate us from the ancients and to hinder us from acknowledging them for
reason and industry of the more prudent there appeared betwixt them so notable a difference that it seemed that it might be said that the former were not men in comparison of the latter So Celot speaks and pretends in the sequel of his discourse that d Quemadmodum in priscorum seculorum hominibus adeo fuit obrutus divinus igniâ— ment is rationis ut cum posteriorum aetaetum politis legantibus ingeniis comparati vix homines appareant Celot l. 5. c. 10. p. 314. as the Heavenly fire of reason had so little vigour amongst the men of the first ages of the world that comparing it with the beauty and politeness of the spirits of latter ages it was hard to believe that they were men In like manner Saint Anthony Saint Paul and the other Hermits who lived in the first ages of the Church compared with the Religious of this present cannot without difficulty passe for true Religious whereas we have cause to wish that these last might be set in comparison with the former and were all worthy to bear the name of their disciples and children In the mean time he is so firm and resolute in his opinion that he cannot so much as onely suffer that the examples of these ancient Fathers of the Monks should be alledged being not willing they should be otherwise considered then as children For see how he bespeaks his adversary e Nae â—u durus importunus qui ad exempla nascentis monachismi perpetuo provocas Ibid. p. 241. You are troublesom and importunate alledging unto us continually the examples of those who lived when the institution of Monks was but yet in its infancy Which he bears so aloft that he fears not to say in expresse terms f Meminerit interim hujusmodi interrogationibus antiquitatem sine periculo respectari nâ—n posse Ibid. That antiquity cannot be attended to without danger As if the opinions and the examples of the Holy Fathers and of the first Religious were not onely unprofitable but also dangerous and that it were more safe to raze them out of the memories of men then to regard and consider them But if there be danger to attend unto antiquity and consider those great Saints who lived in the first ages of the Church it is dangerous also to write and read their lives without doubt for fear that those who observe and read them should thereby become affected with them and imitate them it being manifest that they are not read nor written but on this design We must also condemn the whole Church who publickly celebrates and honors their memory and demands of God for her children grace to imitate them as she declares often in her office So that it cannot be dangerous to observe these ancient Fathers and first Religious and to follow their examples but onely for those who have introduced so many novelties both into their Doctrine and into their conduct that the sole view of antiquity from which they are so prodigiously departed suffices to convince and to confound them ARTICLE II. Of the Doctrine of Probability A Whole Book may be made of this Article which is the principal of this Extract as also the subject which is here handled is the most general and important of the Jesuits Divinity in which in a manner all things are probable as may be seen by Escobars six Volumes of Problematique Divinity which comes to passe not onely by necessity because they examine and regulate all things by their sense and by their reason in quitting the authority of Tradition which onely can quiet the spirit of man and give him some assurance and certainty in the knowledge of truths and particularly of those which respect Religion and manners but also by a particular design of the Society because desiring to govern all the World and not being able without having wherewith to content all sorts of persons there is no means more easie nor Doctrine more commodious for this then that of probability which gives liberty to say and do all that one will as it shall clearly appear in the prosecution of this Article where we will first represent the principal opinions and maximes of the Jesuits touching the Doctrine of probability and in consequence thereof the pernicious effects which it produceth in the Church and in the world which shall be the two principal points of this Article I. POINT The principal maximes of the Jesuits concerning probability THe Doctrine of probability taken out of the Jesuits Books consists particularly in these following points 1. That the Jesuits Divinity makes all things probable 2. That they pretend that an opinion is probable though it be held onely by one single Divine 3. That of two probable opinions we may choose that which is lesse probable and safe 4. That we may even follow sometimes one and sometimes the other though they be contraries Because that these points for the most part depend one on another and are ordinarily handled together and in connexion by the Casuists I will not separate them at all Yet that I may keep some order and hinder the tediousness and confusion which would happen if I should amasse in one sole Article all that I have to relate upon every one of these points I will represent apart the opinions of the principal Jesuit Authors who treat thereon beginning with Layman and Azor who are the most famous of the Society SECT I. The opinion of Layman and of Azor concerning probability LAyman establisheth fairly at first for a fundamental maxime a Ex duabus probabilibus partibus quaestionis licitum est eam sequi quae minus tuta est that when there are two probable opinions about one question it is lawful to follow that Which is lesse sure Of which he renders this reason b Quia in moralibus operationibus necesse non est sequi quod optimum tutissimum sed sufficit sequi bonum ac tutum Layman lib. 1. tract 1. cap. 5. sact 2. p. 4. Because in moral actions it is not necessary to follow the rule Which is absolutely the best and most safe and it sufficeth that it be absolutely good and sure Now he pretends c Quod autem probabilis opinio tradit id bonum ac licitum est Ibid. that what is supported by a probable opinion is simply good and lawful taking lawful and safe for the same thing But if they demand what will make an opinion probable see here the conditions which he requires thereto and the definition which he gives thereof d Probabilis sententia uti communiter accipitur ita definiri potest Quae certitudinem non habens tamen vel gravi autoritate vel non modici momenti ratione nititur Ibid. p. 5. we may call that a probable opinion as it is commonly understood which being not certain and undubitable is notwithstanding supported by some considerable authority or some reason which is not sleight He
no lesse easie then the former For a reason may be convincing in respect of one man which is not so unto another and he who favours an opinion may find it good when he who is of a contrary opinion may think it weak and an obstinate person will not suffer himself to be convinced by one reason and at worst he may easily perswade himself that when he cannot answer solidly the reasons of his adversaries some other more learned then he may do it This is that Tambourin affirms upon the Decalogue So that by these two conditions all sorts of opinions are easily made probable For on one side those which of themselves have neither probability nor truth nay become probable if we can find any plausible reason to sustain them and on the other side a proposition most assured and best established by Tradition by demonstration and faith it self will become onely probable considered by humane reason which is this Jesuits rule to discern of probable opinions For what reason so ever you can bring to prove it they who know the evasions of the Schools may elude it by some distinction or imagine that it may be eluded by some other and so it shall not be convincing and by consequence the proposition shall be onely probable by the definition of the Jesuits He pretends also that the e Infertur 2. unius Doctoris probi docti auctoritatem opinionem reddere probabilem quia non leve fundamentum est ejus auctoritas Ibid. n. 134. authority of one honest and knowing man makes an opinion probable because this authority is a foundation which is not of little consideration And though his Author be alone in his opinion they hold that his opinion ceases not to be probable provided that he believes that he hath reason to sustain it against all others f A communi opinione non facile recedendum viro tamen docto qui utriusque partis fundamenta perpenderit licet si suam etsi singularem probabiliorem judicet Ibid. n. 135. Because although we ought not easily divide from the common opinion yet it is lawful for a learned man if after he hath poised the grounds of the two opinions he judge that his own though singular is the more probable And by consequence others may follow his advice and repose themselves on him for their Salvation especially if they have not been Students and made profession of learning For this Jesuit assures us that g Unus etiam indoctus potest sequi alterius docti singularem sententiam Confidit enim prudenter doctrinae ejus Ibid. a man who is not learned may follow the opinion of him that is though it be a singular one For prudence wills that he confide in his Doctrine He onely would have us to take heed that this Doctor so singular in his opinion be none of the ancients So that if a man knows for certain that one or more of the ancient Doctors have heretofore held and taught publickly a proposition it must not prevail so far with us for all that as to believe therefore that it is probable if it be not approved by the Casuists and Divines of our times h Parum versato in mo alibus non liceâ— quodcunque in uno bel altero Doctore ex antiquioribus invenerit sequi non sciat etiam à recentioribus illam sententiam teueri Ibid. num 136. It is not lawful saith he for one that is not well verst in moral Divinity to follow all that he shall find in one or two ancient Doctors if he do not know that it is also the judgement of the moderns He pretends then that a new Divine may make his opinion probable against the judgement of all others by his own sole authority and that nevertheless many Doctors of the Church have not together the same credit because as Reginaldus and Celot after him say in the name of all the Society i Quae circa fidem emergunt difficultates eae sunt à veteribus hauriendae quae vero circa mores homine Christiono dignos à novitis scriptoribus the resolution of difficulties which concern faith must be taken from the ancients but that which concerns the life and manners of Christians ought to be taken out of the modern authors This seems to be the extreamest debasement and contempt of that can be done to them whom all antiquity and the whole Church have honoured as their Fathers and Masters not onely to defeat them of this quality but to set them below the meanest Authors and the last Divines of these times to whom is given the power and authority to make an opinion probable by their single approbation and by their single opinion secluding that of all others and this right is refused to the Fathers of the Church though they be many consenting together in the same judgement submitting them to the new Divines as their Masters and Judges in such manner as it is not lawful to hear them if they be not approved by the moderns I know not that the hereticks have said any thing more outragious and insolent against the Fathers of the Church Escobar knows not to be more reasonable in the point of probability then his Fraternity since he makes profession to report nothing but their opinions He proposes this question k Varietas opinionum inter superiorem subditum adest teneturne subditus obedire Escobar in preoem exam 3. n. 31. p 30. when a Superiour and those that are under his charge are of different apprehensions is the inferiour bound to obey him The first opinion he relates is that of l Asserit Salas teneri subditum obedire qurties potest absque peccato Salas who holds that the inferiour is bound to obey always whilst he may do it without sin The other opinion which he sets latter as the more probable is that of m At Castro Pelao Quando subditus inquit nititur opinione probabili quod praeceptum sit illicitum vel extra superior is jurisdictionem potest non obedire quia â—nicuique fas est sequi probabilem opinionem Castro-Palao who saith that when an inferier believes according to a probable opinion that the command of his Superiour is unjust or that he exceedeth the bounds of his jurisdiction he may disobey him because it is lawful for all men to follow a probable opinion According to this maxime there will be no more Superiours in the Church nor in the World nor obedience unto them it being manifest that there is no subject nor inferiour who cannot easily think in himself that the command of his Superiour is unjust and find reasons too to perswade himself of it and others also or at the least meet some Casuist who will tell him that it is probable that his Superiour hath gone beyond his power or hath no reason to command this and therefore he is not obliged to obey him So the authority of all forts
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
follow that which he believes to be less probable and to prove their opinion he lends them a reason of which he oftentimes made use before in like cases about other matters e Quia nec temere nec imprudenter agit utpote qui ratione probabili ducitur Ibid. n. 46. Because a Judge doth not herein behave himself rashly or imprudently guiding himself as he doth by a probable opinion Which obligeth him to approve the opinion of these Authors though he dares not follow it f Quamvis autem hoc sit probabile probabilius judico eum teneri sententiam serre juxta opinionem probabiliorem Ibid. n. 47. Because though it be probable yet he believes it to be more probable that a Judge is obliged to Judge according to the more probable opinion There are none therefore but Casuists and directors of consciences alone that are absolutely exempt from this obligation It is of them alone that we are to understand that which Filliutius said above g Licitum est sequi opinionem minus probabilem etiamsi minus tuta sit It is lawful to follow the less probable opinion though it be also less safe And it is to them onely that we are to referre all those maximes and conclusions which we have seen him and his fraternity draw from this principle And though in this they favour indeed those of other professions in fixing them more unto truth and Justice and leaving them less liberty to depart from it yet it is not this they regard particularly their principal design is to favour themselves in giving to themselves a power to dispose of the power of Jesus Christ of his ministry of the consciences and Salvation of men according to their fancy and do in the Church whatsoever they please without considering that there is no greater misery then to love licence and to be able to do what one will against justice and truth II. POINT The pernicious consequences and effects of the Jesuits Doctrine of probability IF the Tree may be known by its fruit and if a good tree cannot bring forth evil fruit as Jesus Christ saith in the Gospel we may confidently affirm that the Doctrine of probability is the most dangerous that ever appeared in the Church and in the world because it overturns all things in them both There is no Chapter in this book that proves not this truth but because it is important and that there are it may be many persons that will hardly believeit and will not easily observe it through the whole extent of this treatise I will represent here some of the principal proofs of the pernicious consequences and unhappy effects of this Doctrine 1. It favours and nurses up weak and disorderly persons in their mistakes and disorders sinners and libertines in their bad courses hereticks in their heresies and Pagans in their infidelity 2. It teaches to elude the Commandments of God and the Church and it overturns Laws Civil Ecclesiastick and Divine 3. It destroys the authority of Princes over their Subjects of Pastors of the Church over the Faithful of Fathers over their children Masters over their Servants of Superiours in Religious Orders over their Inferiours and generally of all Superiours over their Inferiours 4. It introduces independence and leads to irreligion 5. It cannot be destroyed nor hindred from having course in the world if it be once therein received and taught Every one of these points are handled largely enough in diverse places of this Book where may beseen the passages of the Jesuits Authors which I have cited for their verification Wherefore to avoid repetitions I shall often onely give a short touch here as I passe of what they say upon the most part of these points relating upon the rest some other new passages of their Authors I will also recite some out of one of their principal and most faithful disciples and partakers Caramuel by name This is the onely exception to be found in all this work of my design which I have to rehearse onely the Authors of the Society if yet in this it can be said that I depart from my design since it is still onely the Jesuits that speak by the mouth of one of their disciples who doth nothing but deduce and explicate their opinions But if sometimes he seem to be transported and to expatiate too far in the licence of their Doctrine he draws always his conclusions from their Doctrines and he often supports them by their very reasons and in all the liberty of his stile and spirit he advances nothing but what is comprised and contained in the maximes of the Society which I have represented in the preceding Articles It had not been hard for me to have drawn the very same consequences with him But besides that I make some scruple to aggravate or publish the mischief before it appeares and breaks forth of its own accord it goes sometimes to such an excesse that it seems incredible if they themselves who are the Authors thereof did not both own and publish it And this hath caused me to take this disciple of the Jesuits for the interpreter of their opinions as being proper to represent most clearly and most surely the pernicious effects of their Doctrine of probability But because the matter is of great extent I will divide them into several Paragraphs according to the points I even now observed SECT I. That the Jesuits Doctrine of probability favours disorderly persons libertins and infideles 1. IT favours weak and disorderly persons and nuzzles them in their looseness because according to the rules of this probability there is no person of any condition who may not easily be excused of the most part of his duties general and particular continue to live in his disorder and in the abuse which the corruption of the age hath introduced and exempt himself from alms from fasting and from other good works which he may and ought to do according to the order of God and the Church that he might come out of his weaknesses and disorders since these holy exercises are the strength and nourishment of the faithful soul But all these proofs and others also which might be produced upon this point are contained in one sole maxime of the Jesuits Divinity reported by one of their chiefest disciples and defendours a Omnes opiniones probabiles sunt peraeque tutae ac securae benigniores etsi aliquando siut minus probabiles per accidens sunt semper utiliores securiores Caramuel Comment in Reg. S. Bened. l. 1. d. 6. n. 58. Item Theol. fundam p. 134. That all probable opinions are of themselves as safe the one as the other but the more pleasant although they be less probable are always more profitable and more safe by accident That is to say because of their sweetness which renders them more easie more proportionable to the inclinations of men and more favourable to their interest and softness And
than his own Sect though it do not cease to appear unto him also credible But he answers in the second place that this opinion pleaseth him not at all and pretends that in this very case a Pagan is not bound at all to embrace the Faith a Caeterum hoc non placet it a generaliter dictum quippe dum Infidelis sibi persuasum habet suam sectam esse probabitem quamvis contraria sit probabilior tenetur utique in articulo mortis constitutus veram fidem quam probabiliorem judicat amplecti utpote in coarticulo constitutus in quo de extrema salute agitur ac proinde partem quam tutiorem probabiliorem judicat amplectitenetur At extra eum articulum non tenetur quod adhuc prudenter existimet se posse in sua secta perseverare Sanch. op mor. l. 2. c. 1. n. 6. p. 86. Because that when an Infidel is perswaded that his Sect is probable though the contrary which is the Christian Religion appear unto him more probable it is true that at the point of death when his Salvation is reduced to extremity and when by consequence he is obliged to follow that part which he judges to be more sure and more probable he is bound to embrace the true Faith which he believes to be more probable But out of this extremity he is not obliged because he judgeth prudently that he may persist in his idolatry In pursuance of this rule of probability that he acts prudently who follows a probable opinion I believe this Jesuit would not answer for the Salvation of a man who dyes in this estate since he must then believe that he may be saved without Faith and in Idolatry which is the greatest of crimes So that in saying he acts wisely in persisting in Idolatry he saith in effect that it is wisdom to walk in the darkness of death that it is prudence to destroy and precipitate himself into Hell in persuance of his rules of morality and grounding himself upon the principles of probability SECT II. That this Doctrine of Probability favours the Heretiques and nourisheth them in Heresie THe Doctrine of Probability is no lesse favourable to Heretiques then Infidels in that the ordinary arms whereof the Church makes use to defend it self against Heretiques and to assail them being Scripture Counsels Fathers and all that which we have received from the Ancients by Tradition the Jesuits and those who with them defend this Doctrine of Probability find not these evidences for their advantages and are so far from making use of them that they fear and fly from them all they can They cite in their Schools in their writings in a manner as often the Books of the Pagans as of the Scriptures they professe openly to preferre the new Authors above the Ancient they acknowledge not properly for Masters and Fathers any but those of their Society to the judgement and the censure of whom they submit frequently enough the judgements of the Saints which the Church hath always acknowledged for Masters and Fathers Divine or Ecclesiastick authority as well as Faith have scarce any credit in their Schools all as regulated and resolved by the authority of men and humane reason and in all contests and difficulties which they encounter if they cannot prevail by dispute they have recourse to those whom they regard as their Masters and Soveraign Judges in all sorts of matters They appeal to Suarez to Vasquez Molina Lessius and to others such like without making almost any mention of Jesus Christ the Apostles or the Ancient Fathers unless for form and without producing the definitions of the Councils or Traditions of the Church to determine the questions because they find them not conformable to their Spirit nor their designs some can make no use of them because they understand them not and even will not give themselves the trouble to study them and the others because they find not in them what is for their purpose Besides they wish they could content the whole World and answer all persons that consult them according to their humour and disposition Which obligeth them to look out for a Doctrine that is flexible and manageable and which may be accommodated to all occasions The maximes of Faith seem to them too fixed and the rules of the Church and the Gospel too firm and the opinions of the Holy Fathers too exact and too unmoveable For this cause they being not able to make use of them to establish the maximes of which they have need that they may make their designs to prosper and fearing on the other hand that they might be made use of against them to overturn their naughty maximes they find themselves as it were constrained by necessity to do all that they can directly or indirectly to corrupt them weaken them and to take away all credit from them In this they imitate and favour the hereticks of whom they have learned to reject the Holy Fathers especially in the difficulties which regard manners and the conduct of life and to despise Antiquity and Tradition through a blind love of their own novelties and proper imaginations and they are even in some sort more blameable then the Hereticks because they renounce the Father and the Tradition upon a pretence of holding to Scripture and these to follow their new Authors from whom they declare openly that we ought to take Law and rules for Christians Morals rather then from the Fathers of the Church Quae circa fidem emergunt dissicultates eae sunt ex veteribus hauriendae quae vero circa mores homini Christiano dignos à novitiis scriptcribus Colot l. 8 c. 16. p. 714. And indeed there hath never been any heresie which hath not had at the least some sort of probability because there hath yet never been any which hath not had some appearance of truth without which it could have found no followers the spirit of man not being capable to follow any thing but truth nor to be deceived but by the shaddow of it And it often happens that the greatest Heresies took for their foundation the greatest truths and have built on the strongest reasons Which shews clearly that if to follow a probable opinion be to act prudently and if an opinion be probable when it is grounded on the authority of some learned man or some likely reason as the Jesuits and those who hold their Doctrine of Probability tell us there is no heretick who may not maintain against them that he acts prudently whilest he lives in his heresie It is true that the Hereticks have misconceived the truths of which they would make use and especially those of the Scripture which they have corrupted in their sence and in their words that they might fit them to their thoughts and errours b Communis error ex probabili opinione ortus satu est ad gestorum per Sacerdotem vaâ—…em Sanch. op mor. l. 1. c. 9. n. 35. p.
in a Collection which he hath made of the principal decisions which are drawn from the principles of the Doctrine of Probability where after he had reported a great quantity according to the order of the Alphabet he declares that there are an infinite of others which he hath not nor can report because that would be very difficult and tedious and the maxims and use of the Rules of Probability extending themselves in a manner unto all sorts of matters there would need an entire Volume wherein to collect and report them simply Operosum id ita est prolixum quippe per omnes fere materias est percurrendum ut integrum merito volnmen exposcat yet I cannot abstain from reporting here also three taken out of this Author which shew an extraordinary and palpable corruption and a very peculiar deprivation of reason in those who are capable to approve or follow them 1. n Probabile est v. c. hoc vectigal injuste esse impositum probabile item esse impositum juste possumne ego bodie quia sum exocto Regius vectigalium exigere ejusmodi vectigal sequendo opinionem asserentem illud juste esse impositum atque adeo licere mihi sine injustiâ—ia illud exigere cras imo etiam hâ—die quia sum Mercator illud occulte defraudare sequendo opinionem asserentem illud à justitia deficere It is probable saith he for example that an Excise is justly established it is probable on the other side that it is unjust may I being at present established by the King to raise this Impost exact it according to the opinion which maintains that it is just and therefore lawfull for me to levy without doing any injustice and to morrow or the same day being I am a Merchant may I secretly defraud this very Impost following the opinion which condemns it of injustice 2. o Secundo probabile rursus est ablationem famae pecunia compensari probabile non compensari Possumne ego bodie infamatus velle ab infamante compensationem in pecunia cras imo bodie ego ipse alium insamans nolle famam proximi à me ablatam compensare pecunia It is probable that the loss of reputation may and may not be compensated with money May I to day being defamed desire satisfaction in money and to morrow or this very day having defamed another not be willing to allow him the same compensation 3. In the third place p Tertio probabile item reo licere aequivocare in judicio probabile non licere Possumne ego reus bodie aequivocare cras vero creatus Judex urgere reum ut non aequivocet Haec innumerabilia ejusdem generis hic in controversiam narrantur In casibus relatis num 1. 2. 3. atque in similibus licitam esse ejusmodi mutationem concedimus Tamb. l. 1. Theol. c. 3. sect 5. num 1. 2. 3. 21. It is probable that a Defendant may use equivocations in Justice May I being this day Defendant use equivocations and to morrow being chosen Judge constrain the Defendants not to make use of them In the process he answers In this case and other such like I grant that it is lawfull to change opinion He believes therefore that these persons may do that justly unto others which they would not have done unto themselves and which they would free themselves from as much as possible and he sees not that this is to overturn the prime Law of Nature and the Gospel which ordains That we should do unto others that which we would they should do unto us and not to do unto others that which we would not they should do unto us and that this is at once to violate all the Commandments of God which are founded on this principle of Nature and all the Law and Prophets which according to Jesus Christ's saying depend upon this rule and all the Holy Scripture which are nothing else but an extension and explication of this same principle SECT IV. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability ruines entirely the Authority of the Church of Pastors and Superiors of all sorts TO make this truth appear we must observe that there are four sorts of Principles for ruining the Authority of Superiors 1. By corrupting or destroying the principle of it 2. By bounding it and encroaching upon it 3. By rejecting or weakning its commands 4. By hindring Subjects from obeying The Jesuits by the Doctrine of Probability corrupt the Authority of the Church in the original of it in attributing to it no other than a mere humane power They retrench and destroy it in not consenting that it may prescribe the inward actions of vertue they bound it and encroach upon it by the irregularity of their Priviledges which they abuse to the contempt of the commands and Ordinances of Bishops and invading their Jurisdiction they utterly abolish some of their Laws and they weaken others of them and there are hardly any unto which they have not given some assault by the multitude of inventions they have found out to defeat and elude them These points are entirely verified in the whole process of this Book and some of them in entire Chapters But that which is remarkable and very proper to justifie what I pretend here is this that the means and the armes which they and those who follow their opinion make use of to fight against the Authority of the Church in all these manners are the maxims of their Doctrine of Probability The Authority of the Church is of it self assured and uncontroulable being supported by the firm rock of Gods Word For this cause there cannot be found a means more ready or more infallible to ruine or weaken it than to undermine its foundation and to make it depend on humane reason and authority submitting its Jurisdiction and its power to the disputes and contests of the Schools and rendring in that manner every thing probable that respects its power that they may afterwards become the Arbitrators and Masters thereof It is not needfull here to repeat all that is found in the body of this Book to prove this truth it is sufficient only to report some passages of their Authors and their Disciples in which they avow themselves that the Doctrine of Probability doth absolutely ruine the Authority of the Church and of all sorts of Superiors and they make it so clear in the examples that they produce that after they are read it seems not that any person can doubt thereof Hereof see one manifest proof in the case which Caramouel propounds in these terms q Petrus secutus opinionem benignam probabilem non satissacit mandato sui Abbatis in casu in quo probabiliter non tenetur obedire probabilius tenebatur Praelatus supscribens sententiae severiori judicat illum debuisse obedire proinde peccasse Petitur an possit contra illum procedere punire tanquam inobedientem Caram in com in reg S. Bened. l. 1. n.
65. A man relying on an opinion sweet and indulgent but probable disobeys his Superior in a thing in which it is probable that he is not obliged to obey but it is more probable that he is obliged The Superior following the opinion which is more safe judges that he ought to obey and therefore that he hath sinned It is enquired whether he may act against him and punish him as disobedient See here the question proposed according to the rules of Probability The Superior hath reason to command it the Inferior hath reason not to obey both founded on Probability The person of the Superior is more considerable and his pretension more just besides it is more probable Let us see notwithstanding what will be the judgement of the Doctors of this Science r Respondeo Petrum non peccasse Addo posse Praelatum subscribere alterutri opinioni ac propterea censere Petrum habuisse obligatâ—onem obediendi Sed illam invincibiliter ignorasse ductum opinione probabili nihilominus temere judicat Praelatus eum peccasse quia improbabile est eum peccarc qui sequitur opinionem probabilem ut num 59 ostendi Cum ergo improbabile sit Petrum peccasse injustus erit Antistes si contra illum procedat quia ubi non est culpa nec medicina est opus nec poena Ibid. I answer saith Caramouel that the Inferior sins not and I say further that the Superior may follow which of the two probable opinions he pleaseth and by consequence judge that the other is obliged to obey him but he having followed a probable opinion is innocently ignorant of this obligation But the Superior shall be rash if he judges that he sins because it is not probable that he sins who follows a probable opinion and so it being probable that this private man hath not sinned the Superior shall be unjust if he treat him as guilty for where there is no fault there is no need of remedy nor punishment There is no person who seeth not that this answer overturneth in a manner all the Authority of Superiors of what condition or order soever they be since the reasoning of this Author is general and comprehends them all For through the extreme licence which they have at this day introduced to make almost every thing probable and to found this probability upon any likely reason or upon the advice of one single man as do the Jesuits it will hardly happen at all that a Superior can make any command in which some probability occurres not which may take away his power of causing himself to be obeyed and to punish the rebellious who pretend to be innocent and more just and reasonable than himself If this Superior be condemned of rashness and injustice in following the more probable opinion he shall be by much stronger reason if he follows the less probable So that whatsoever he doth and on what side soever he turneth in any difference which he shall have with his Subjects he cannot avoid condemnation if he be judged at the Tribunal and according to the Laws of Probability and it seems that as this Doctrine was not invented but to favour looseness and disorder and vice in all sorts of professions it hath also for its principal scope to fight against and to destroy as much as is possible the persons that are established by God to hold the Word in duty and all things in order This is evident that the Doctors themselves of this new Science are constrained to confess that if the principles of their Probability be held to we must speak no more of Scripture nor of Superiors and that they do only delude their Inferiors having no authority or power at all Caramouel considering this principle of the Jesuits Divinity of which we shall speak hereafter to wit that the Church hath not power to condemn inward actions affirms that it follows thence not only that the Ecclesiastick doth not ill who sayes not his Breviary at all provided he conceal this but also that there is no more Authority in the Church which appears so horrible to himself that he cryes out with astonishment Å¿ Bone Deus si haec opinio semet admitteretur actum esset de tota aut fere Superiorum authoritate subditi obedirent ad ocâ—los privatim omnia mandata Ecclesiastica aut Secularia tâ—merarent Nemo peccaret si secreto comederet carnes die Veneris nemo qui diebus jejunii tertio vel quarto nemo qui secreto omitteret Officium divinum Caram Theol. fund p. 205. Good God if this opinion have success there will be an end of almost all authority of Superiors the Inferiors will only obey them when they look on them and in secret they will violate all sorts of Commandments Secular or Ecclesiastick none shall sin in eating Flesh on Fridays nor in eating three or four times a day on Fasting-dayes nor in dispensing with themselves secretly for Divine Service He acknowledges all these things he confesses that they are unsupportable excesses but he confesses that they are true consequences of the Jesuits Probability t Nimia omnia improbabilia tamen legitime illata ex doctrina probabili These excesses are very great and incredible but yet they are the legitimate consequences of the Doctrine of Probability He himself makes no difficulty to testifie openly that he sees well that this Doctrine tends to the withdrawing of all sorts of Subjects and Inferiors from the obedience of their Superiors and u Ut video ex hac doctrina oriri in nostris scholis possit Independentium illa haeresis quae ab annis pauculis inficit Angliam Ibid. to introduce every where the heresie of the Independents which of late years hath infected England To all this he answers but one word and as it were on the by at the end of his discourse x Quaerenda igitur est ratio probabiliore certier quae hanc doctrinam perniciosam debellet Ergo Theologe Lector me adjuva ergo vel mihi oslende cur antecedens non sit probabile aut cur consequens sit probabile aut tandem ostende errorem in argumentation is nostrae forma quoniam doctior esse desidero nec â—pâ—os Magistros lavenio Ibid. We must therefore search out some reason which is more certain than the more probable to convict and overturn this pernicious Doctrine Assist me saith he Reader if thou be'st a Divine and shew me why the antecedent is not probable or how the conclusion can be so or at least shew me some fault in this reasoning for I desire to be instructed and I find no Master capable to instruct me He avows the mischief of this Doctrine which he himself terms pernicious and also that he knows no remedy for it at all That is that it is wholly inevitable Whence it is easie to conclude that by the very rules of Logick unto which he addicts himself as the principal
dare not express openly and which yet is comprehended in what he saith that they pass their time in an employment altogether vicious Though he concludes not for the affirmative yet for all that he testifies sufficiently that it rather shame and fear of men that hinders him from declaring himself and he makes it well appear that he is not far off from this opinion in that he contents not himself only to report and propose it as probable and to say that we may follow and advise it with a safe conscience which is truly to approve it but he approves it yet more formally by supporting it with all the reasons he can See here how he talks Because we are not assured of the intention of the Church and that the Texts of c. 1. de Cler. non res ...... of c. Licet 32. of the title de Prebend make no mention save of their assistance in the Quire and because the custom every where received exacts of the Chanons no other thing that they may receive their dividends but that they be present I esteem them without blame and reproach who in favour of their Penitents hold this second opinion Here are four reasons to be observed upon which he concludes that they are not reproachable who maintain that the Chanons satisfie their duty as far as the Church obligeth them therein and earn their dividends by assisting in the Quire with irreverence and that even outward also by laughing scoffing and spending their time in employments altogether vicious 1. Because it is enough that they are present 2. Because the custom every where received requires no other thing of them 3. Because this opinion is favourable to Penitents The Jews and Pagans themselves who have any knowledge of God will perhaps be ashamed to speak in this sort and to say that we may pray to him and serve him in so prophane and unworthy a manner His fourth reason is because we are not assured saith he of the intention of the Church It is apparent that he hath taken this reason from Filliutius who to confirm the opinion which he holds that whatsoever voluntary distractions we can have in prayer and in the divine Office there is therein no more than venial sin makes use of this very same reason For after he had brought for proof of this opinion 1 Quia satis accommodata est hominum sragilitati difficultati quam humanus intellectus experitur in attendendo diu uni rei that it is sufficiently accommodate to mens frailty and to the difficulty of holding the spirit of man a long time attentive to one object he adds 2 Verisimile est autem Ecclesiam noluisse suo praecepto obligate ad rem ardusm ita ut major hominum pars eam servare non possit Filliut tom 2. mor. qq tract 23. c. 8. num 253. pag. 126. That for this cause it is likely that the Church had no intention by its precept to oblige men to a thing so difficult that the greatest part of men cannot observe He would say that when the Church commands the faithful to pray unto God and to the Ecclesiasticks to recite the divine Office and to both of them to be assistant at Massâ—on Festival days we are not assured that it sorbids voluntary distractions and wicked thoughts wherewith they voluntarily please themselves we are not assured that it would that we should at least demean our selves with some outward reverence or whether indeed 〈◊〉 have not left to all a liberty to laugh sâ—…ff and pass their time in scandalous discourse and in an employment altogether vicious Now if these Jesuits had said as some of their Fraternity that the Church had not power to forbid the greatest part of these things which respect the thoughts though their opinion had been false it had for all that been less criminal and less injurious to the Church For to say that it cannot command us to pray to God with reverence and attention is to hurt its Authority but to say that it is not its intention or that it would not or only to doubt whether having power it would and whether it desires we should bear that reverence and attention which God demands in prayer is to violate its Holiness to give it an intention far distant from that of God to deny that it is guided by the Spirit and to make it accomptable for all the crimes which are committed in this kind because having power it forbids them not as Filliutius and Bauny suppose For otherwise it were in vain that they should trouble themselv es to know its intention and will in a point which depends not at all on its will But though there were some one to be found who might doubt of this or who of gross ignorance knew not the intention of the Church in this matter it is not lawful for Father Bauny to make use of this pretence to favour an opinion which leads unto Libertinism and Irreligion and we need not seek more clear testimony to destroy this errour than his own since he declares in Chap. 20. of his Sum pag. 332. That being true devotion is in the heart and not in the carriage or without in the fashion and other outward gesture and that this pretended devotion without is but a vizor and an Idol of devotion it is a resolved case that in the voluntary distraction and wandring of the mind in praying by obligation as do Priests Deacons and Subdeacons and Beneficiaries there is sin and so they are obliged to repeat the Office which they have said with so great indevotion For the will of the Church is that by this action which it commands them they should praise and pray unto God their Creator And do they this whilst they have nothing less during their singing than God before their eye They ought then to fulfil their duty begin the Office again and in default thereof if they be Beneficiaries they are bound to restore either to the Church where their Benefice is or to the poor the fruits they have received according to the rate of their omissions as may be collected from the Bull of Pius V. He pursues the same matter and declares once more in the same place what is the intention of the Church in the Command which it give Ecclesiasticks and Beneficiaries to recite the Office The Church intends not saith he to make the Ecclesiasticks Possessors of the fruits of their said Benefice if they earn it not by their labour The disposure thereof is conditional if they perform the prayers with which they are charged doing them to the praise and honour of God And can we say with truth that they deserve to be his servants or put into the rank of those who render him the worship which his Majesty requires of them when they have their lips only occupied in his service and not their heart because it is filled with unprofitable thoughts and very remote from
statim confiteri Respondetur negative Ita Lugo num 150. est communis sententia quia Concllium solum loquitur de co qui ob urgentem necessitatem sine consessione celebrat Dicastill tract 4. de Euch. d. 9. d. 9. num 155. That it obligeth only Priests who have said Mass in some great and urgent necessity If then he say Mass being in mortal sin without necessity he shall not be obliged yea though he also did it maliciously he should not be obliged ex mera malitia And they find so little irreverence and so little evil in administring the Sacraments and offering Sacrifice in this manner that they even permit the Faithful to exact of them these Functions without any necessity although they also know that they are in an estate of sin 1 Licet cuicunque petere recipere Sacramentum Sicerdote existente in mortali etiam non Paroche nec parato allas ipsum conserre si perenti ea receprio futura sit commodior vel utillor quam si ab alio peteretur Idem tract 1. de Sacram. d. 3. d. 13. num 296. It is lawful for every one saith Dicastillus to demand and receive the Sacraments of a Priest who is in the estate of mortal sin though he be not his Parish-Priest nor be designed for it nor so much as disposed to administer them unto him if he find it more for his convenience and benefit than to demand it of others It is as casie a matter to receive the Sacraments as to administer them there is no more preparation for the one than for the other And if these Maxims were well grounded we might complain of the rigour and severity of the Jesuits seeing the Sacraments are not yet so frequented as they ought to be since in what estate soever we receive or give them there is so much to gain and nothing to lose THE SECOND PART OF THE SECOND BOOK Of the Outward Remedies of SIN That the Divinity of the Jesuits abolishes or corrupts them THE Physitian labours for his Patient when he prescribes what he ought to do as well as when he presents unto him what he ought to take for his Cure Whence it comes that they say commonly that he hath given him a good Remedy when he hath given him good advice how to remove the Disease whereof he is sick So that not only the things which he prescribes but the prescriptions themselves are remedies but with this difference that what he prescribes as Purges and Medicines are the inward remedies because they act upon the disease it self and have an internal vertue proper to destroy it when they are taken effectually but the prescriptions are as it were external remedies because they act not immediately upon the disease but only upon the mind of the discased by the knowledge they give him of his disease and of what he ought to do for his cure We must say the same thing holding the Rules of Proportion of our Souls diseases and remedies We have already observed that Grace Penance good Works and the Sacraments are the internal remedies of sin because they have a divine and internal vertue which the Spirit of God hath impressed upon them to expel sin from the Soul or to prevent its entrance thereinto And we say here that the holy Scripture the Commandments of God and those of the Church are the external remedies of the same sin because though they act not immediately upon sin they act upon the mind of the sinner and if they change not his will internally they touch his mind and conscience externally by the knowledge they give him of sin and by the fear which they impress upon him of the punishments with which God hath threatned those who commit them We have seen in the former Part of this second Book that the Jesuits destroy the internal remedies of sin we shall see here in this how they abolish or corrupt the external and so it will appear that they favour and cherish sin as much as they can This second Part shall have three Chapters The first shall be of the Corruption of Scripture The second of the Commandments of God And the third of the Commandments of the Church CHAPTER I. Of the Corruption of Scripture That the Jesuits corrupt the Scriptures divers ways THere are only three things to be considered in the holy Scripture the Letter the Sense and the Authority And accordingly we may distinguish three different manners of corrupting holy Scripture 1. In the Letter by adding taking away or changing something in the sacred Text. 2. In the Sense by false Expositions 3. In the Authority by debasing the Author and diminishing the belief that is due unto him Now let us see in what manner the Jesuits have corrupted and yet do every day corrupt the holy Scripture We might compose great Volumes of Passages which they have altered by false Interpretations yea may be of all places wherein Canonical Writers and Jesus Christ himself have spoken with any vehemence and vigour concerning the Holiness of our Mysteries the Duties of a Christian and the narrow way to Salvation we should be troubled to find one whereunto they have not given some blow haling them from their natural sense by Expositions false and contrary to the general Consent of the Fathers and Tradition of the Church that they might accommodate them to the relish and lusts of worldly men I will relate only some few to serve for Example S. Paul saith writing to the Corinthians 1 Si habutro omnem fidem Ita ut montes transferam charitatem autem non habuero nihil sum Et si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardesm charitatem autem non habuero nihil mihi prodest 1 Cor. cap. 15. Though I had faith to remove mountains and had not charity I were nothing And though I should distribute all my goods to the relief of the poor and though I should give my body to be burnt if I had not charity it would avail me nothing But Father Celot being resolved to maintain the contrary saying that we may suffer Martyrdom profitably and do those other works whereof the Apostle speaks like a Christian without any motion from Charity to defend himself from this passage so strong and so manifest he corrupts and subverts it in this manner He saith that this must be extended to the habit and not to the act and motion of Charity meaning that the actions of which S. Paul speaks may be meritorious holy and perfect though they be done without love to God and though we never think of him provided we be in an estate of Grace So that he maintains that a man who is in the estate of Grace cannot act otherwise than by this Charity whereof the Apostle speaks See his words 2 Eo loco habitum charitatis postulari ab Apostolo aio ego 3
is altogether equal to a Lay-mans Cum in hoc Religiosus Secularis fint omnino pares But Escobar forgot these words or rather left them out purposely though they seemed favourable enough to the design he had of establishing unto Monks the right of killing for honour Without doubt he believed that this would debase too much the right of the Monks in this point to make them equal to Lay-men For the right of the Monks being grounded according to him on their Profession and Vertue as the Laicks on their valour and dexterity in managing their Arms being the Profession and Vertue of Monks is more elevate and more to be esteemed than the Exercise of Arms it must necessarily follow by this reason of Amicus that the right which the Religious have to kill for honour being better grounded should also be stronger and greater than the Laicks And by consequence he ought not to have said that the condition of the one and the other was altogether equal but it must be concluded by the Principle and Argumentation of these Jesuits that in this the Monks ought to have advantage over the Laicks and that they may kill with more liberty and upon less occasion those who invade their honour And the reason hereof is clear Because the more precious honour is the more easie it is to hurt it and the fault of him that doth it is the greater and as offences which are slight being done against private persons are very great and deserve exemplary chastisement being done against the honour of a Prince or a King so an injury which would not be considerable against the person of a Laick would be criminal being done against a Monk to blast his or his Orders reputation By this Rule it is easie to judge how far this pretended right may be extended or rather it will be hard to judge of its so great extent As it will be at the pleasure of Monks to set their honour vertue and the respect due unto their Profession at what rate they please so it will also be in their power to judge of the greatness of the faults which are committed against them in this point and consequently of the penalty they deserve who commit them And if it be lawful for a Lay-man to kill for a matter of small value licet sit res parvi pretii as Vasquez saith by example for an Apple or a Crown ut pro pomo vel etiam uno aureo servando as saith Lessius as we have seen when a mans honour is concerned in the taking these things from him we must confess that a yet lesser occasion if a less can be had than an Apple or a Crown will suffice according to this Divinity to give the same toleration to a Monk We need only look surlily upon him do or say the least thing to offend him to incur his displeasure and thereupon to dye by his hand if he please to make use of this right which the Jesuits attribute unto him as they also usurp it themselves and pretend they may use it as we shall see in the following Point where we relate the Opinion of Father Petavius upon this matter V. POINT The Conformity of the Jesuits who in our days have taught in their Colledges with the more Ancient in the Doctrine of Murder THis Doctrine having been invented and established partly by the most ancient and most considerable Divines of the Company of Jesuits as we have now seen in the preceding Points their Authority hath given such credit and such a current to it amongst their Fraternity that passing thus from one to another as a Tradition of the Society it hath been ever since maintained by their Schools and is propagated unto our days without any interruption On the contrary it hath by succession of time received a notable increase and far greater Authority by the multitude of those who have followed it the later always endeavouring to add something and to augment the inheritance of their Fathers by expounding and extending more and more the bloody and inhumane Maxims which they had left them on this subject For some years this Doctrine hath also been taught in divers places of this Realm in many Colledges of the Jesuits at the same time and many years together in the same Colledges Father Flachaut and Father Le Court have taught it at Caen and in teaching it have been transported to all excess which therein could be committed I will only report here one or two passages of one of these two Casuists faithfully extracted out of his Writings which have been verified by publick Authority by the diligence of the Rector of the University of Paris wherein he hath heaped together and said in short a great part of what Lessius and others have propounded upon this subject See here his own words 1 Dico 5. probabiliter licitum esse cuivis etiam Clerico Religioso per se loquendo semoto scandalo occidere furem fugientem etiam non resistentem ferentem res tuas pretiosas puta equum praesertim Ecclesiae si aliter recuperare nequces I say that it is probably lawful for all sorts of persons even for Clergie-men and Monks speaking absolutely and setting aside scandal to kill a Thief who flyes though he make no resistance when he takes away some precious thing as a Horse especially Church-goods and which he cannot otherwise recover 2 Itemque licitum esse occidere fugientem si id necessarium sit ad defensionem honoris tui notabiliter amittendi I say moreover that it is lawful to kill a Thief who flyes if it be necessary to the preservation of mine honour therein notably concerned 3 Denique licet volentem te percutere leviter occidere ubi id insignis est injuria praesertim in Nobilibus nimirum accepta alapa gladio percutere statim ad vitandam ignominiam conservandumque honorem Ita docti permulti Finally it is lawful especially for Gentlemen to kill him who is minded to smite them though slightly if the injury and dishonour they receive thereby be remarkable so after they have received a box on the ear they may presently strike with the Sword to avoid disgrace and preserve their honour This is the opinion of many learned men These learned men are Molina Lessius Sanchez and others whom we have produced in the fore-going Points as the Authors and Fathers of this Doctrine since they have confessed themselves that they found it not in the Books of other Divines at least as to certain the most important Propositions The same Casuist saith that a man who fears lest another should lay some Indictment against him or accuse him unjustly that he might destroy him because he hath affirmed that he hath such a design may justly kill this his enemy challenge him into the field or rid his hands of him by secret means as he judges it convenient And then he advises rather to
him believe their innocence And in case they meet not with a prudent Confessor who understands well these shifts and deceits and fall into the hands of one who seems to them too exact and would oblige them to restore what they have privily taken away he holds that they are excused from giving credit unto him and though the Church it self should interpose and employ its Authority and press them by vertue of a Monitory to come unto Confession and Restitution they would not be obliged to obey it Because in this occurrent saith he neither the wife nor the children aforesaid ought or can be forced by the Confessor to reveal the things they so purloyn'd though the Creditors should obtain Mandates and Letters monitory from the Bishop From the same Principle he affirms in the same Chapter pag. 200. That a person who is indebted for very great and notable sums may to the prejudice of his Creditors give away part of his goods so that he to whom the gift is made shall not be obliged to restore any part thereof to his Creditors if he be not constrained by Law See how he concludes after he had proposed contrary opinions upon this point I say then that he who hath received by Deed of Gift any moveable or immoveable of a man in great debt is not obliged to quit it in favour of the Creditors of such a Debtor before the Law constrain him In the following Page he propounds another Case upon the same Subject and he resolves it after such a manner as authorizes and maintains not only injury but revenge also and murder Some one saith he entreats a Souldier to smite and beat his neighbour or to burn the Farm of a man who hath offended him It is demanded whether the Souldier failing the other who prayed him to do all these outrages ought to repair out of his own Estate the damage which proceeded thence Upon which he makes a Relation of some Authors who hold the affirmative and without quoting any one for the contrary opinion he broaches it as from himself and saith for refuting the first My opinion is not as theirs For no man is obliged to restore if he have not violated Justice Doth he so who submits himself to anothers pleasure when he only entreats of him a favour This goodly reasoning may serve to justifie from doing wrong not only all men who employ their friends or other persons to do mischief making use of them as their hands and instruments and so doing the very same action and injury with them whether they commit theft or murder or other violences but it may also justifie all persons who induce and sollicite others unto wickedness and the Devil himself when he tempts men and causes them to sin because temptation and sollicitations unto evil force not the will and are only inducements and prayers as it were which depend absolutely on them who are tempted and sollicited to do evil which many do also refuse and reject Behold whereunto the Maxims of this Casuist are reduced They teach to steal with subtilty and confidence without being obliged unto restitution to speak against ones conscience without lying to forswear without treachery to make a mock of Justice without being deficient in the respect due thereto to contemn the Authority of the Church without disobedience and finally to defraud Creditors ruine Commerce destroy publick Faith and make havock of our neighbours goods without injustice ARTICLE VII THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESSE BEaring false witness is a sin so odious and contrary to the Law of Nature that the most corrupted persons and who boast of all other sins cannot endure to be accused of this nor even of a simple lye God hath always forbidden it whether before a Judge or in private but the Jesuits favour it at any time and the sins which depend on it to wit slander and detraction Dicastillus demands 1 An teneatur quis retractare suum falsum dictum quando ex co inferenda est alteri mors seu mutilatio etiamsi testi se retractantâ— fidem resultet simile damnum Exi stimo si non peccaverit mortaliter dicendo illam falsitatem non teneri cum tanto suo incommedo cognita veritate dictum retractare Legatur Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 59. Less dub 7. Reginald sect 2. num 45. Dicastill lib. 2. tract 2. disp 8. dub 7. num 92. Whether he be obliged to retract who hath affirmed some falsity which will cost the loss of life or member to another when the witness by his retractation will himself incur the same penalty He answers That he believes that if the false witness have not sinned mortally by bearing this false testimony he is not obliged after that he understands the truth to retract what he hath said so exposing himself to so great evils That is to say it is lawful to kill an innocent after we have slandered him rather than put our selves into any danger by retracting since it is not so much the offences or the Hangmen as the witnesses that put him to death who is condemned upon their depositions That we may have a clearer Exposition of this Question this Jesuit sends us his to Treatise of Restitution where he saith 1 Ad nibil tenetur is qui falâ—um testimonium dixit ex ignorantia vel inadvertentia etlaâ—si ex â—llo tesâ—imonio contingaâ— aliquem damnari Less cap. 3. dub 7. Haec sententia in praxi tuta est sed prior magis videtur consona rationi Dicastill lib. 2. tract 2. disp 3. dub 2. num 57. That the opinion which holds that a person who hath born false witness through ignorance or inadvertence without sinning mortally is obliged to nothing though this false testimony do occasion the condemnation of a man is safe in practice though the opinion seem to him more agreeable unto reason For he regards no more to follow the light of natural reason and equity than the Rules of Faith but only his own sense and the Authority of such as he is in resolving difficulties which refer to Manners and Religion And this is one of the most goodly and commodious Principles of the Jesuits Divinity that we are not obliged to restitution when we have not sinned mortally in wronging our neighbour For if this Principle be sure they who find a great sum of money or take it by ignorance and heedlesness are not obliged to restore it because they have not sinned mortally in taking of it We may see the consequence of this in the Chapter of Restitution But if you joyn hereto the conditions the Jesuits require to make an action a mortal sin false witnesses will thereby receive great comfort and encouragement boldly to act and acquit themselves in this duty The same Author is not less favourable to him who suffers himself to be corrupted by money not to bear false witness but not to testifie the truth He approves Azors observation who saith
Church and Nature it self since it can prevail without incurring any penalty against the Laws of the one and the other And since the Laws of the Church are also the Holy Ghost's who by it hath given us them and who guides it in all it doth and ordains if custom carry it against the Laws of the Church as this Casuists pretends it must needs be according to him that it hath more power than the Holy Ghost and that the Authority it hath in their School is more to be considered than that of 〈◊〉 himself since he believes that we ought to yield to the abuses it hath introduced into the Church to the prejudice of the primitive Orders and Laws which the Holy Ghost hath established But if these things seem extraordinary and incredible in themselves and considered according to the Rules of Truth and natural Sense alone yet they are not so in the Maxims of these new Doctors For it is not in this case only but in occasions of all other sorts that the custom being sound opposed and contrary to the Laws of God and the Church it ordinarily gains the cause by their Judgment as hath been observed in many places of these Writings Escobar follows the same Rules with Layman to determine what labour is lawful or forbidden on Feast-days that is 1 Servile opus est ad quod servi deputati sunt Nec opus servile fit quia â—b lucrum est factum si de se servile ante non erat Escobar tract 7. exam 5. cap. 2. num 4. pag. 99. Servile work saith he which is for servants and slaves And he adds as Layman that if a work be not servile in it self it doth not become servile when it is done for gain He afterwards sets down in the number of actions which are not servile studying writing travelling dancing And although he affirm that hunting and painting are servile actions he forbears not to say afterwards 2 Pingere ex suo genere servile est Venatio si fist ex officio servile est ut pictura ob voluptatem recrcaâ—ionem minime Ibid. num 8. Mundare scopis tapetibus vestire parietes Ecclesiarum hujusmodi nisi aliqua intercedat excusatio saltem venislia sunt Ibid. n. 6. Num misericordiae opera exercenda De se servilia non licent ut consuere vestem pauperi deferre ligna eidem c. Ibid. num 7. That if hunting be followed upon obligation and of duty as when a Hunts-man or a servant hunts at the command of his Master it is servile as well as painting but that it is not so if it be pursued of pleasure and for pastime That is to say that a servant may not go on hunting in obedience to his Master when he sends him but the Master may go for his pleasure and the servant also and by consequence that obedience in labour profanes a Holy day but pleasure in the same work profanes it not Speaking in the same place of those who labour in cleansing hanging and trimming Churches on Feast-days he saith that they sin at the least venially if they have not some lawful cause He saith the same thing of the outward works of mercy which are exercised towards our neighbour as to mend the cloaths of the poor to carry them wood or other things whereof they have need these actions according to him are servile and forbidden on Feast-days He would have it lawful to paint and hunt for pleasure on Feast-days and he will not have it lawful to sweep hang and adorn the Church for the Service of God He would have us have power to walk dance travel and go whither we will for our pastime but he will not have it lawful to visit the poor and sick and to give them some assistance pretending that works of mercy are more contrary to the Sanctification of Feasts than the sports and pastimes of the world He will not have it lawful to carry alms themselves unto the poor on Feast-days as he saith expresly a little after For having put the Question if those who by a motive of piety do actions which are called servile sin against this Commandment of the Church he answers in these terms 3 Excuiandine aliqui ratione pietatis Aliqui liberant à reatu exercentes die Festo opera servilia ad templa aedificanda vel resicienda gratis ad â—lâ—emosynam gerendam ad ornanda delubra c. At ego cum illis sentio qui laborantes vel hoc praetextu sint necessitate non excusant There are some who exempt them from sin who busie themselves in servile works on Feast-days to build or re-edifie Churches gratis to carry alms to the poor to adorn Temples c. But as for me I am of the opinion of those who exempt them not who labour without necessity on Feast-days though they do it under this pretence that is to say by a motive of piety He believes then that it is lawful to play dance walk abroad without necessity and for pleasure only on Feast-days because according to the Jesuits Divinity these actions are not servile He pretends also though painting and hunting be servile of themselves yet the motive of pleasure and contentment which we look for in them hinders them from being so and makes them lawful And yet he maintains that to sweep a Church for devotion or to take delight to dress an Altar to hang a Chappel to carry alms unto the poor are actions prohibited on Feast-days and that necessity only not pleasure can hinder them from being servile As if the pleasure taken in hunting or painting were more noble and holy â—…an that which is taken in serving the poor and God himself in the Churches He finds it difficult to exempt these actions of Piety and Religion from mortal fin so rigorous would he appear in this point They are saith he at the least venial sins Saltem venialia sunt Filliutius had said it before him in the same terms and yet more clearly 1 Mundate scopis templum vestice parietes tapetibus hâ—jusmedi vidertur servilia nisi aliqua excusatio intercedat erit saltem peccatum veniale non motrale secluâ—o contemptu Filliutius qq moral tom 2. tract â— cap. 9. n. 156. pag. 267. It seems that to sweep Churches to hang them and other such like actions are servile and to do them without lawful excuse is at least a venial sin though not mortal if not done through contempt Strange Divinity that we need not to fear to contemn the Command of God forbidding us to work on the Feast and Lords-days by working for our selves because we take our pleasure in the work as in hunting and that we ought to fear contempt and mortal sin in working only for the Service of God and the Church So that these days which God hath ordained particularly for his Service may be employed according to this Divinity to serve any thing but
dispense with himself for hearing Mass on the Lord-day but he saith not that this will suffice him to acquit himself as he ought of this Precept which commands him to sanctifie this day And how was it possible for him to say that having said immediately before that the intent of God and the Church is that we should not busie our selves in any other thing than his Service Vt in eo tantum divinis cultibus serviamus After Bauny had so well expounded this passage and had made so happy use of it unto his design he joyns the Authority of the Councils to that of the Apostles and S. Austins and he goes on with his discourse in this manner The Councils say as much That of Mayence cap. 17. and of Tours 3. both in the year 813. in the time of Leo III. and of Charles the Great and the 6. of Constantinople in the 8. Chapter in these terms Diei vero Dominici tanta debet esse observantia ut praeter Orationes Missarum solennia ea quae ad vescendum pertinent nihil fiat So great ought the observance of the Lords-day to be that besides prayers and the solemn celebration of Masses nothing should be done but what appertains to dressing of meat It would not be easie to find in the Councils a passage more express than this for condemning Father Bauny and his Brethrens opinion concerning the Sanctification of the Lords-day and yet he produces it and pretends to make use of it as a strong proof for himself Bauny would have handy labour only forbidden on the Lords-day and the Council which he cites forbids us doing any thing on that day but what is necessary for our lives ut praeter ea quae ad vescendum pertinent nihil fiat Bauny maintains that in hearing Mass we satisfie the Precept which commands us to sanctifie the Lords-day and the Council declares that we ought to employ all the day in the actions of Piety and Religion such as are prayers presence at the Mass and divine Service forbidding all other sorts of employments and divertisements ut praeter orationes Missarum solennia nihil fiat Layman speaking of the obligation to sanctifie Festival days expounds it in this manner 1 Alterum quod in Ecclesisstico praecepto de observatione Festorum continetur affirmativum est ut omnes Fideles usum rationis habentes integram Mistam cum attentione audiant Lay-man lib 4. tr 7. cap. 3. num 1. pag. 185. The other part of the Commandment of the Church which regards the observation of Festivals is affirmative and ordains that all the Faithful who have the use of reason should bear the whole Mass with attention If you be concerned to know which Mass ye are obliged to hear he will answer you 2 Non refert ad praecepti hujus adimpletionem utrum Fideles Festo die intersint Missae solemni vel privatae Ibid. num 3. That for fulfilling this Precept it is indifferent whether the Faithful hear on Feast-days an high or low Mass If you represent unto him the obligation they are under to hear the high Mass in their own Parishes he will resolve you this doubt by telling you that there is not an absolute obligation of hearing Mass only in your Parish Neither is there any Church appointed as namely that of your Parish for hearing Mass saith he but in what place soever the Faithful hear it they satisfie the Precept of the Church He will acknowledge indeed that the Bishops and Pastors of the Church ordain that the Faithful hear Mass in their own Parish but he acknowledges not their voice in this point for the voice of the Church and he makes no scruple to say that the Faithful are not obliged to obey them grounding himself upon the Authority of Suarez and Tolet 4 Ubi admonent non obligare praeceptum Episcopi ut subditi Missam audiant in propria Parcchia Ibid. who give to that he speaks of this advice that the Command which the Bishop makes unto those under his Charge to hear Mass every one in his own Parish is not obliging pretending that the Bishops themselves have not power to command this without doubt because they have not received it from Suarez nor Tolet there being no appearance for them to say that they have not received it from Jesus Christ since he hath given them Authority to govern their people and to command them whatsoever they judged profitable to their Salvation and the good of the Church and hath said unto them that whosoever obeyeth them obeyeth him in their persons and that they who despise them despise him himself Besides many Councils have ordained that we should be present at Masses in our Parish who deserve not to be heard according to these Jesuits as having gone beyond their power and made rash Ordinances Tambourin troubles not himself to know whether there be any Ordinance which forbids the hearing of private Masses in Religious houses to the prejudice of the Parochial For he pretends that these Decrees are abolished by custom 5 Quod si textus cap. 2. de Parcchis contrarium dicat jam is est usu consuetudine abrogatus Tambur lib. 1. meth celebr Miss cap. 4. sect 5. num 6. That if the Text de Parochis cap. 2. say the contrary it is at this day abolished by use and custom Dicastillus before him had assured us the same thing 6 Sed ubique quaecunque Missa audiatur satisfit praecepto quidquid aliqui ex antiquis dixerint jam enim certissimum est apud omnes authores antiquum jus consuetudine abrogatum esse Dicastill de Sacr. Miss tract 5. disp 5. dub 4. num 56. Whatsoever may be said by the Ancients it is altogether certain at present saith he according to these Authors that the ancient Law is abrogated by the custom And which is astonishing after he had given unto this custom which is a visible disorder the power of abrogating the Right and Laws of the Church he denies the Bishop the power to destroy this custom by his Ordinances 7 Episcopus non potest praecipere ut quisque audiat Missam in sua Parochis eo ipso quod secundum Ecclesiae usuâ— liberum sit cuique ubique audire num 59. The Bishop saith he cannot order every one to hear Mass in his own Parish because according to the usage of the Church every one is free to hear any where So if you will believe these Divines all the Sanctification of Feasts and Lords-days are reduced to the hearing of a Mass and that a low Mass and to hear that where we please let the Bishops and Councils say what they will 3 Neque etiam certa Ecclesia puta Parochialis pro Missa audienda definita est sed ubicunque Fideles Missam audiant praecepto Ecclesiae satisfaciunt Ibid. But if any one have not devotion and leisure to hear Mass Dicastillus
hath taken care to accommodate persons of Quality 1 Senatores ac reliqui primarii virl qui Reipublicae negotia in aliud tempus rejâ—cere commode nequeunt Dicastillus de Sacr. Miss tract 5. disp 5. dub 10. sect 5. n. 207. If they cannot saith he conveniently remit publick Affairs to another time they are exempt from the observation of this Precept But that we might not accuse him for accepting of mens persons he allows Servants not to go to Mass 2 Famuli in locis ubi non est nisi una Missa extraordinariam adhibere diligentiam non tenentur v.g. nimis diluculo surgendo ab ordinario moderato somno nimis demendo vel aliquid simile praestando Ad hoc enim non obligat praeceptum num 214. If they must rise early thereto and sleep less than they are accustomed If they were urged with their own affairs sleep and drowsiness would not keep them in bed and if their Master had commanded them to rise very early in the morning to follow him on hunting or to do some infamous service for him this Jesuit would have obliged him to obey him and yet he dispenses with them for obeying the Commandment of the Church to serve God in hearing Mass if to observe this Commandment they must rise earlier and sleep less than they were wont But if you would not hear a whole Mass these new Casuists hold that one may satisfie this duty by hearing part only and it 's a shameful thing to see how they talk thereof how they divide and cut into pieces as we may say the most holy things in Religion disputing and contesting one against another to determine precisely what part of the Mass may be omitted and what is absolutely obliging to be heard to satisfie the Churches Command They are all agreed that he sins against the Commandment who comes short of any notable part of the Mass but they are at difference how to determine this notable part Coninck saith that he wants a notable part who hears the Mass only from after the Gospel Others reduce it to a moity or third part of the Mass as Azor who demands 3 Qualem secundum communem sententiam committeret qui veniret post Evangelium Coninck de Sacr. q. 83. a. 6. dub unico num 285. pag. 285. What part of the Mass shall we hold to be notable And he answers That all are agreed that the half or third part is notable Bauny in his Sum cap. 17. pag. 277. is bolder than the rest because he speaks after them For he determines more particularly what part of the Mass we are obliged to hear precisely to satisfie the Precept This is my opinion saith he 1 that he who hears the Mass from the Offertory inclusively until the after Communion satisfies the Precept because he finds himself present at all the essential and integral parts of that Mass I know not who hath given him Authority to diminish the Mass in this sort and to chop off from it as I may say the head and the feet by cutting away the beginning and the end of it There are found some others who are yet more subtle on this subject and teach us to cut the Mass in two in the middle and to joyn the parts of two different Masses together thereof to make up one entire one Azor in the place I now alledged gives us this Expedient and saith that he that will make use thereof shall acquit himself very well of his obligation to hear Mass 4 Quaenam paâ—s Missae notabilis habeatur Inter omnes convenit dimidiam aut tertiam partem esse notabilem Azor lib. 7. cap. 8. pag 630. Because he doth all that is contained in the Precept as much as the Church doth simply command when the whole Mass is heard since it commands not the whole Mass to be beard of one and the same Priest Coninck is also of this opinion in the place which I have now cited where he makes this Question 5 Praeslat quidquid in praecepto continetur Nec enim praecipit Ecclesia ut ab eodem Sacerdote totum integrum Sâ—crum sed simpliciter ut Missam totam audiamus Azor supra Whether he who comes to the Mass for example a little before the Consecration and hears that which remains of that same Mass and the beginning of another said after to the Consecration exclusively satisfies the Precept of the Church He affirms that they who hold the negative are grounded upon a very strong and effectual reason which is that he who carries the matter so hears not any one whole Mass whereunto nevertheless he is obliged by the 6 Utrum qui venit ad unum Sacrum paulo ante consecrationem v. g. audit reliquam partem illius Sacti aliud sequens usque ad consecrationem exclusive satisfacit praecepto Ecclesiae Coninck supra num 287. Commandment of the Church 1 Quia cum duae illae partes sint inter se omnino independentes non possunt integrum sacrificium constituere constituere consequenter qui eas audit non audit Missam integram ad quam tamen obligatur haec ratio in rigore loquendo hanc sententiam satis efficaciter probat Ibid. For that saith he these two parts of two different Masses are independent one on another they cannot make up an entire Mass whereunto nevertheless he is obliged and this reason speaking in rigour proves this of inion effectually enough But quickly after these words he adds that notwithstanding this 2 Quia tamen plurimi Doctores docent contrarium absolute loquendo talis est securus probabile est cum satisfacere Ibid. Because there are many Doctors who teach the contrary he that so carries the business is in safety and its probable that he satisfies this Commandment He assures this man upon a simple probability and the word of some Casuists against the Authority of the Church since he confesses that it intended a whole entire Mass and which is not so if it be not said of one and the same Priest and against reason which he acknowledges to be evident and forcible as if the new Casuists ought to carry it against the Church and Reason it self He is not content to renounce reason to follow a new and corrupt practice and to take the liberty to overturn the Laws of the Church under pretence of expounding them he would also cast the fault of this licentiousness and contempt of the Authority and Laws of the Church upon it self For to support his answer he saith 3 Ratio est quia cum Ecclesia sciat suas leges ita à gravibus Doctoribus explicari hoc ipso quo torum explicationes permittit publice imprimi doceri censetur suum praeceptum juxta eas moderati Ibid. That the Church knowing well that the Laws are thus expounded by grave Doctors and suffering their Expositions to be
imprinted and taught publickly is thought to sweeten its Laws and to moderate them according to these Explications As if the Church approved all things it tolerates or which comes not to its knowledge A new Inquisition altogether extraordinary would need to be established to examine all the Errours which are in the new Books And because the Pastors of the Church dissemble them sometimes and suffer them with sorrow and groaning feeing at present neither means nor disposition to correct or repress them it is to do them great wrong and to abuse unjustly their patience and forbearance to draw from thence advantage to deceive the world and to make the Commonalty and simple people believe that the Bishops approve by their silence all that they condemn not openly though they frequently lament it before God See here how errours and abuses slide into the Church and establish themselves therein by little and little they that have introduced them pretending at last to make them pass for Laws and Rules of the Church Bauny in his Sum cap. 27. pag. 181. proposes also this question Whether it be satisfactory to the Precept of hearing Mass to hear one part of it of one Priest and another of a second different from the first He quotes Emanuel Sa and others who hold the affirmative and approving this opinion he adds I hold it for true for that hearing it in that manner that is done which the Church would have For it is true to say that he who hears of one Priest saying the Mass after he is entred into the Church that which follows the Consecration unto the end and of a second who succeeds the first that which goes before the Consecration hath heard all the Mass since he hath been found present indeed at all its parts He stays not here He saith moreover that we may not only hear the Mass in this manner in parts at twice when two Priests say it in course and successively without interruption but also at thrice or four times and more with interruption and at as great a distance of time as we will And because he saw that this opinion might be ill received because of its novelty he would make it passable under the name of Azor that we might not believe that he invented it himself It is demanded saith he if this ought to be done in an uninterrupted succession and without intermission of time Azor p. 1. lib. 7. cap. 3. q. 3. answers no and that dividing it we may at divers times attend unto so many parts of the Mass as may make up one entire Mass That is to say that we may hear it of so many different Priests as there are parts in the Mass provided that what we have heard of every one apart being joyned together contain all that is said in a Mass and though the Priests say these Masses at far distant times and Altars we fail not by hearing them in this manner to satisfie the Commandment of the Church and to have truly heard an entire Mass composed of parts so different and incoherent It were better to oppose the Commandment of the Church openly than to make sport with it in so ridiculous a manner and with so strange a liberty which can be good for nothing but to make the Mass and all Religion contemptible to Hereticks and Atheists In the mean time this goodly reason which suffices to fulfil the Precept of the Church by attending at all parts of the Mass in what manner soever we hear them whether it be in a continued succession and at once or by many parts and at divers times hath brought things to such a pass that some exceed so far as to say that entring into a Church where we find two Priests at two Altars whereof the one hath newly begun his Mass and the other is at the middle of his if we attend at once to the one from the beginning unto the middle and to the other from the middle unto the end we shall thereby discharge our duty of hearing Mass Bauny cites for this opinion Azor and some others and Azor speaks in these terms If that be true which the second opinion affirms I see nothing to hinder but he may fulfil the Precept who entring into a Church hears the Mass in two parts of two several Priests who say it at the same time For as for attention he may lend it to them both at once For this cause I approve this opinion not because it is grounded on a sufficiently forcible reason but because it is supported by the Authority of considerable persons He acknowledges that this opinion is ridiculous in it self and contrary to the Commandments of the Church and the respect which is due unto the Mass and is also without reason and solid foundation and for all that he forbears not to approve it for fear of disobliging and reproaching those who maintain it to whose Authority he chuses rather to submit his Judgment than to that of the Church and Reason Coninck saith the same thing and he approves also this opinion as the more probable though he follows it not being restrained by this single consideration 2 Quia Doctores non â—odem modo asserunt hunc satisfacere sicut priorem Coninck supra That the Doctors do not assure us that this latter doth fulfil the Precept as well as they do for the former Here it is remarkable what submission and respect these Casuists have for one another which proceed so far as to make them renounce reason and truth rather than to separate from and contradict one anothers opinions if it be not rather some combination in a faction or private interest that obliges them thereunto They give themselves the liberty to reject the holy Fathers and to prefer their proper imaginations and new opinions before the ancient Doctrine of those Great Masters of Divinity as we have observed on many occasions and they are very tender of departing from the opinions of the Causists of these times though they doubt that they are far off from reason and truth establishing by this means the Casuists as Judges and Masters of truth and their novel opinions as the Law and Rule of Manners and Religion Tolet treating of this subject speaks thus 3 Aliqui volunt quod si quis mediam Misâ—am audireâ— ab uno Sacerdote reliquum ab alio quod satisfactret praecepto Nam Miffam integram audirer mihi videtur probabile Tolet. Instit Saterd lib. 6. cap. 7. num 8. pag. 1030. There are some who say that if one hear the half of a Mass of one Priest and the rest of another he doth thereby satisfie the Precept us well as if he had heard the whole Mass entire And this seems probable unto me Escobar takes it for granted as certain and general that it is lawful to hear the Mass in parts of divers Priests and afterwards he makes a person that advises with him to talk
matter and it seems that according to this opinion we need no other preparation to approach the Altar and holy Table than for to eat at our common tables and that a man may go with the same pace and temper to receive the Communion as he would to a Feast to be debauched As for Priests who are the Ministers of the Eucharist and who consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Altar and who give it to the Faithful after they have taken it first themselves Emanuel Sa saith that for to say Mass they 1 Potest quis secundum quosdam in necessitate profanis linâ—eis uti eaque postea Domino reddere utenda Sa verbo Missa num 7. p. 501. may make use of the same Napery whereof they make use to spread common tables when they have no other and make use of them after Mass as they did before at table But if this Casuist be so liberal in this he will appear very severe in another of less moment when he supposes that it is a great sin to say Mass 2 Celebrare sine calceamentis si absit contemptus non est mortale est autem si celebretur corporalibus valde immundis Ibid. num 15. pag. 503. Azor existimavit mortifere eos peccare qui sine justa causa tertia horae parte ante auroram vel post meridiem faciunt Sacrum Ibid. n. 27. pag. 509. without shooes though he dare not say that it is a mortal sin when it is not done by comtempt as he assures us it is when the Consecration is celebrated on very foul Corporals But he is yet more rigorous afterwards when he saith it is not lawful to say Mass before day nor after noon without a dispensation adding that they who transgress Rule and say the Mass a quarter of an hour or at most half an hour sooner or later sin mortally grounding this opinion upon Azor. Amicus saith the same thing and acknowledging after Baronius that the Mass hath been heretofore celebrated in the Church at divers hours and many times in the evening it self he saith that this ancient custom hath been interrupted for some time and another new one introduced into use to say it only from the time it is day until noon And after he adds 3 Quod autem haec consuetudo vim habeat legis obligantis sub mortali colligitur tum ex privilegiis quae Pontifices concedunt Religiosis c. That this Custom is instead of a Law and hath a vertue to oblige upon pain of mortal sin as may be collected from the Priviledges that the Popes give unto Monks to say Mass before day and after noon He would say that if it were only a venial sin to say Mass before day or after noon there would be no need to demand a Dispensation for neither he nor his Companions make any great account of venial sins mortal ones only in their opinion requiring a Dispensation that they may be committed without fear or danger So that all Laws and Commandments that oblige not under mortal sin have not any need of a Dispensation according to these Doctors and we may boldly violate and contemn them We have seen hitherto in divers places of this Book and particularly in this Treatise of the Commandments of the Church that according to the Jesuits when the Church commands the Faithful to pray to assist at divine Service to say to hear Mass on the Feast and Lords-days to communicate at Easter to confess at least once a year we may satisfie and accomplish all its Commands by doing only the outward actions which it commandeth though we do them by compulsion in hypocrisie with a formal design not to obey it through any wicked motive and by committing in the very outward action of the obedience we render it crimes and Sacriledges It is now pertinent for us and as it were necessary in the prosecution of this Work to discover the cause of this mischief and to ascend unto the Spring and Principle from whence the Jesuits draw these Maxims so pernicious and contrary to all good Manners Christian Purity Sanctity of the Sacraments Authority and Conduct of the Church and of the Holy Ghost who animates and governs it in all things This we are about to do in the next Chapter where we shall shew that the Jesuits hold that the Church is no other than an humane Assembly and a Body Politick and by consequence that it hath no Power nor Authority over internal and spiritual actions which are out of its Jurisdiction because they are hid and without its cognizance Whence they infer that when it commands any practice of Vertue exercise of Religion or use of the Sacraments its Commandment reaches only to and stays at what is external in these actions without proceeding farther unto inward actions and obliges not to any other thing than to do simply what it ordaineth in some sort whatever it be and upon what design or motive soever it be done that we may represent the Opinions the Jesuits have of the Church its Authority and Commandments we will add this Article to the three former 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 IF you inquire of the Jesuits wherefore according to their Divinity we may be discharged of the Prayers ordained by the Church by praying with voluntary distraction and reciting the divine Service without intention Wherefore we may accomplish the Command of saying Mass on Feast and Lords-days by attending without devotion that of Fasting by fasting for vain-glory that of Confession by confessing without sufficient sorrow for sin that of Communicating at Easter by receiving with hypocrisie and knowing we are in mortal sin Wherefore we may acquit our selves of Penance injoyned us by a Confessor accomplish a Vow made unto God satisfie a Promise an Oath made unto men and God by doing only in outward appearance what we are obliged to do And why we may generally accomplish all sorts of Precepts by actions which in truth are sins by doing them without any design to discharge our duty and on the contrary with a formal design not to discharge it and by a formal contempt of the Commandment and those who made it having an express intention not to obey even then when we seem to obey it doing outwardly what is commanded If you demand I say of the Jesuits the reason of all these so strange things which we have already made appear that they teach for the most part some will answer you with Sanchez that this is because the Church hath not the power to make Laws which command other than the substance of a thing that is to say in his language what is external in the actions it wills you to do Quia leges praecipiunt solum substantiam actus non modum Sanchez opermor lib. 1. cap.
14. num 1. pag. 65. Others will say with Filliutius and Layman that it is because when the Church commands any thing it cannot prescribe the manner of doing it nor the end nor motive wherefore it ought to be done Finis praecepti non cadit sub praeceptum saith Filliutius Filliutius mor. qq tom 1. tr 7. cap. 2. n. 24. pag. 171. And Layman adds imo nec cadere potest Layman l. 1. tr 4. cap. 4. n. 6. pag. 49. Finally the greater part and almost all of them will tell you with Amicus Coninck and Escobar that the Church hath no power over internal actions and that it cannot command them nor oblige us to accompany the outward actions which we exercise by its order with the inward actions of vertue which are necessary to their being well done Ecclesia non habet potestatem supra actus mere internes saith Amicus Amicus tom 8. dub 17. sect 2. num 12. pag. 274. Ecclesia absolute non potest actus mere internos praecipere aut vetare saith Coninck Coninck q. 83. de Sacram. art 6. dub unico num 291. 292. pag. 285. 286. and Escobar after him Ecclesia actus internos non potest praecipere Escobar tr 1. exam 12. cap. 1. n. 2. pag. 199. The last of these answers is most general And indeed the other two depend on it and are referred unto it as Conclusions unto their Principle For the reason wherefore according to them the Church cannot prescribe the manner of doing things which it commands nor the end wherefore they ought to be done is because the end and good motion for which they ought to be done that they might be well done are acts of the will and internal power upon which they pretend that the Church hath neither power nor command Ecclesia actus internos non potest praecipere So that being here to declare the Principles of all the mischievous Maxims which we have reported before which tend to the ruine and entire abolition of the Commands of God and the Church and all Christian Piety I will only stand upon the Examination of this That the Church cannot absolutely command or forbid internal acts Ecclesia non potest absolute praecipete actus internos because this comprehends all the rest To make appear that this Principle is common amongst the Jesuits we shall not need fresh proof For besides that they make no difficulty to confess it I have already before in divers places reported many passages wherein they use it to elude the Commandments of God and the Church and teach men to undervalue and despise them And to refute this so pernicious Doctrine it will suffice to have represented as I have done the wicked sequels which infallibly arise from it and the consequences contrary unto the Foundations of Religion and Christian Piety which depend thereon and are inseparable from it But because that this point is very important and hath a great extent in matters of Religion and good Manners I will here relate some more passages upon this subject to make it yet more clear and make the pernicious sequels of this novel Doctrine of the Jesuits evidently appear Layman speaking of this matter gives a charitable advice or rather a Law to the Pastors and Bishops of the Church saying 1 Non poterit facile legislator aut Praelatus sub peccato obligare subditos ad adhibendum intentionem aliamve internam dispositionem accidentalem Lay-man lib. 1. tr 4. cap. 4. num 13. pag. 51. That it is no easie matter to find occasions wherein a Law-giver or a Superior may oblige his Subjects under pain of sin to have an intention or other inward accidental disposition He puts no difference betwixt Secular Law-givers and Pastors of the Church nor betwixt Authority of those and the Ordinances of these He denies equally to both a Power of regulating what is internal of their Subjects and to prescribe unto them the intention and other spiritual dispositions in which they ought to do what they command them He excepts not the Superiors in Religious Orders unto whom yet he gives in this point more power than unto the Bishops and the Pope himself 2 Praelatis tamen regularibus paulo major potestas in suos competit ratione voti religiosi obediendi Praelato in omnibus quae secund um regulam consuerudinem Ordinis praecipiuntur Ibid. The Prelates Regulars saith he have a little more power over their Inferiors because of the Religious vow they have made to obey their Superior in all that he shall command them according to the Rule and Customs of their Order He grounds this pretended advantage of the Superiors of the Religious Orders above the Pastors of the Church upon the vow which the Religious make to obey them in all things as if the Faithful were not obliged by Baptism to render all manner of obedience to the Church as well as those who enter into any Religious Order promise to keep the Rule and to obey those who received them into it and as if a Religious person could give more power over himself to his Superior than Jesus Christ hath given his Church and its Pastors over the Christians whom he hath committed to their Governance But he grounds himself also upon the Authority of Suarez 3 Qua de re Suarez lib. 4. de legibus cap. 12. in fine ubi monet discrimen esse inter obligationem regularium ex voto obedientiae obligationem aliorum ex lege civili vel Ecclesiastica Nam lex fundatur in jurisdictione quae solum data est quantum expedit ad bonum communitatis Praeceptum autem Praelati regularis fundatur in voluntate voventis seu pacto promissione ejus quae quia principaliter fit Deo actu etiam mere interno fieri potest Ibid. Who saith he treating on this subject observes that there is difference betwixt the obligation of Religious persons by vertue of their vow of obedience and that of others by vertue of Civil and Ecclesiastick Law For the Law is founded upon Jurisdiction and Authority which is not given the Law-giver but for the common good But the command of a Superior in a Religious Order is founded upon the will of him who makes the vow and upon the covenant and promise by which he is obliged to obey And this promise being principally made to God who hath power over the internal acts it may be extended to these acts as well as the external If this arguing be good for the Superiors of Religious Orders it must needs be good also for the Superiors of the Church For we submit our selves voluntarily to the Superiors of the Church as the other submit voluntarily to the Superiors in a Religious Order We become Christians voluntarily as we become Religious voluntarily and as we promise obedience to the Superiors of a Religious Order in becoming a Monk so
we promise obedience to the Superiors of the Church in becoming Christians and we promise to render them this obedience as to them who hold the place of God according to the Word of Jesus Christ 1 Qui vos audit me audit Luc. 10. v. 16. He that obeys you obeys me And according to that of S. Paul 2 Pro Christo ergo legatione fungimur tanquam Deo exhortante per nos 2 Cor. 5. v. 20. Gods speaks unto you by us we are but the Ministers and Embassadors of Jesus Christ If then the Superiors of a Religious Order can command the internal actions because the submission rendred unto them depends on the will and promise of their Inferiors which regards God in them it must also be confessed by the same reason that the Ecclesiastick Superiors Prelates have the same power and may as well command the internal actions of them that are subject unto them for their Salvation Also it is incredible and contrary to the most common apprehensions of Christianity that the Superiors of Religious Orders should have more Power and Authority in their Congregations than the Bishops and Pope himself have in the Church and that the Power of the Pope and the Bishops should not be more internal and spiritual than that of Magistrates and Secular Princes unto whom these Jesuits compare them setting them all equally in the same inability to command internal things without acknowledging any difference betwixt them in this point and giving this advantage above them only unto Superiors of Religious Orders when they say 3 Discrimen est inter obligationem regularium ex voto obedientiae obâ—igationem aliorum ex lege civili vel Ecclesiastica That this is the difference which is betwixt the obligation of Regulars who come under a vow of obedience And if the Laws of the Church differ not in this point from the Civil Laws and the Prelates of the Church no more than Civil Magistrates have any power to command internal actions we must say that the Superiors of Religious Orders unto whom they ascribe this power hold it not from the Church and cannot receive from it that power which they say it hath not it self Also they pretend to hold it from the will of those who make vows of Religion since they say 4 Praeceptum Praelati regularis fundatur in voluntate voventis pacto seu promissione ejuâ— c. That the command of a Superior in a Religious Order is founded upon the will of him who makes the vow and on the covenant and promise by which he is obliged to obey him c. They would then that the Superiors of a Religious Order receive not from the Church the Authority and Power which they have to command but from the will of those who become Religious and they are herein soveraign and independent on the Church Which is both against the modesty of Religious persons the Order of the Church truth it self and evident reason the Superiors of the Religious Orders being not capable of so much only as to receive any Religious into their Order but by the power which they have received from the Superiors of the Church who consequently have all the power of the Superiors of the Religious Orders and much more but they have it in a manner more eminent as the Spring and Principle of this Power And if the Inferiors can by their will and by their vows give to the Superiors of Religious Orders Authority and Power to command them even internal things Jesus Christ might with stronger reason give it unto the Prelates of the Church over them and over all other the Faithful since Jesus Christ hath more power over us than we have over our selves and we are without comparison more his than our own So that he might give the Church all power over us which private persons can give over themselves to Superiors of Religious Orders by their vows and much more Which shews that the Ecclesiastick is far different from the Civil Jurisdiction with which the Jesuits nevertheless do confound it and the Ecclesiastick are other than the Civil Laws which they notwithstanding would make equal For the Jurisdiction which Jesus Christ hath given the Church over all Christians is more extended holy and divine than that of Secular Magistrates and it respects Souls more than bodies the inward than the outward since it respects eternal Salvation which depends altogether on the actions of the Soul and not of the body which do nothing without those of the Soul Also Jesus Christ hath not given unto Secular Powers the Holy Ghost to govern their people as he hath given it to his Church He hath not given them the power to open and shut Heaven unto them to cut them off and re-unite them to his body to nourish them with his flesh and blood and to fill them with his Spirit and he hath not said unto them that when they speak it is the Holy Ghost who speaks in them that it is the Holy Ghost who commands what they command that whoso despise and dishonour them despise and dishonour the Holy Ghost For thus the Apostles have spoken in the Scripture since S. Peter saith to Ananias and his Wife that they lyed unto the Holy Ghost because they had lyed unto one of the Ministers of the Church And this is the reason that the Councils and the Fathers so often call the Laws of the Church Sacred and Divine knowing that they proceed from the Holy Ghost who is always in the Church as Jesus Christ was with the Apostles and conducted them till his Passion and death Which is so true that Layman himself could not refrain from acknowledging it more than once in very clear terms 1 Quis enim neget quin lege vel praecepto Ecclesiae utpote animarum salutem sptctante praecipi possit ut ministri Ecclesiae vere non simulatorie orent Sacramenta ministrent Fidelibus omnibus ut Sacramenta vere non per fictionem suscipiant Qui autem sine interna intentione orant sine ullo animi dolore peccata confitentur c. si non vere sed ficte orant non verae sed fictae poenitentiae Sacramentum postulant Ergo non satissaciunt Ecclesiae praecepto Ibid. Who doubts saith he that the Church which in all its conduct regards the Salvation of Souls may command its Ministers to pray and administer the Sacraments with sincerity and not only in appearance and to all the Faithful to receive in like manner the Sacraments with a true internal disposition Now they who pray without inward attention and they who confess without a true sorrow for their sins neither pray nor confess truly but in appearance And by consequence they satisfie not the Commandment of the Church Which may be extended to all the Commandments and all the Laws of the Church since they are all of the same nature and all have reference to
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
govern their Subjects I know not whether ever there were any Heretick that had so base a thought of the Power and Conduct of Jesus Christ since they themselves who will not acknowledge him for a God hold nevertheless that his conduct was divine and that God himself with whom he had an alliance and very peculiar union of affection and perfect correspondence of will acted by him and he by the Spirit of God who conducted and governed him And if the Jesuits themselves had not set on foot and published in their Writings these excesses against Jesus Christ never heard of until this present there are few persons that would have believed or who durst have objected to them so great an impiety as which renders Religion altogether humane outward and politick though it be contained in the bottom of their Doctrine and be a necessary and evident consequence of the Principle of their Divinity which we examine in this Chapter For the Power of the Church and that which the Pope and the Bishops exercise in the Church being given them by Jesus Christ and being the power of Jesus Christ himself whose place they hold and person they represent it thence follows that if the power of the Church and its Pastors be humane that of Jesus Christ is so also and that if the Church in the vertue of the Authority which it hath received of Jesus Christ cannot command internal and spiritual acts of vertues and exercises of Religion the power of Jesus Christ is likewise bounded to the external and his Laws oblige only to the external part of that which he hath commanded himself in the Gospel or by the Apostles in their Writings being in this like the power of the Princes of the Earth who have an humane Authority and external conduct which obliges their Subjects to no other thing than to observe the external part of what they command and to do precisely that which they say and express in their Commands This is so as Amicus speaks of Jesus Christ Putandum est Christum praecepta hominibus dedisse more humano quo solent terrestres Principes suis subditis praecepta dare quae non obligant nisi ad id quod exprimitur But that we may see yet more clearly that these so strange discourses and propositions are not found by chance in the Books of the Jesuits but are as I have said the sequels of their Maxims which they bring forth upon a formal design they have to debase the Church in its Pastors and to render the Kingdom of Jesus Christ all carnal and earthly as they have said that the power of the Church and its conduct is only humane and like that of the Princes of the Earth politick and civil Magistrates they say also that the vertue and Holiness required of them who enter into the Offices of the Church and to be exercised by them is only humane external and politick For Father Celot after he had divided piety into that which is internal and true and that which is only external and apparent saith that this latter suffices to the exercise of the Offices of the Church I call saith he the Holiness whereof the question here proceeds external and there needs not precisely any other to Jurisdiction and Hierarchick functions Which he expresses also in such manner and in terms so strong and express that I dare well say that the most criminal and infamous persons are not unworthy of an Episcopal Charge considered in it self nor because of its greatness and Holiness but only by reason of the Ordinance of the Church which hath judged them uncapable 1 Gratiani sententia est câ—…minibus nonnullis infames ab Episcopatu procul haberi non vi stauâ—s ipsius sed optimo Ecclesiae instituto eximiam quantum quidem fieri pâ—…test sanctitatem in ministris suis exigentis Celot lib. 9. cap. 20. pag. 947. Gratian holds saith he that he who is made infamous by some crime is excluded from being a Bishop not by the proper condition of Episcopacy but by the Ordinance of the Church which requires in its Ministers the greatest Holiness that is possible But always external because it cannot demand any other having no power of the internal For this cause they fear not to say that we may advance our kindred or friends to the highest Offices in the Church 2 Attamen ego fieri dicam sint vitio eos etiam assumi posse qui non sunt perfectioris virtutis modo politicis virturibus sint praediti Ibid. though they be no Saints provided they have politick and apparent vertues And that you may not contemn all these vertues he calls them perfect and maintains this name may be given them with reason because they appear such in the eyes of men And he pretends that we ought thus understand the vertues which S. Paul requires in a Bishop 1 Quas tu perfectiores ego illustiores hominum oculis magis expositas voco indeque ostendo caput illud tuum Episcopalis perfectionis quod perfectiores virtutes exigat facile explicari de splendidioribus politicisque non de iis quae majorem Dei amorem pariunt Ibid. The vertues saith he speaking to Mr. Hallier which you call most perfect I call most resplendent and most remarkable in the sight of men and I shew that which you call perfection of the Episcopal estate which requires more perfect vertues than the common ones may easily be understood of more resplendent and politick and not of those which produce a more perfect love of God This is that which he had exprest a little before in other terms when he propounded as a certainty 2 Apostolus certe sive ad Titum sive ad Timotheum virtutes non admodum supra vulgares desiderat in Episcopo Ibid. pag. 946. That the vertues which S. Paul required in a Bishop writing to Titus or Timothy are not at all above the vulgar Finally it will appear by these excesses which would seem to us incredible if our eyes did not oblige us to believe in seeing and reading them in the Books of the Jesuits that these men destroy the Church from its Foundation and make it altogether external humane and politick And this is that Lessius saith in express terms calling it a Body politick Corpus politicum After this we cannot think it strange if other Jesuits in conformity to the Opinions and in consequence to the common Doctrines of the Society have said that there need only politick vertues to govern the Church and to exercise its principal Offices which are Government and Policy and that its Laws are but humane and politick which oblige only to the external part of its Commands not only in those made by the Ministers of Jesus Christ but by Jesus Christ himself who according to these Doctors hath commanded nothing but in an humane manner as other Princes do So that whereas Jesus Christ hath called his Kingdom not of this world the Jesuits maintain that it is and like to that of the Princes of the Earth And whereas he hath said that his Kingdom is within us and in the innermost parts of our Souls they maintain on the contrary that it is external and without us and that the Church which is his Kingdom is no other than a politick Body and Church And so by the wonderful Judgment of God they fall into the condemnation which S. Cyprian hath pronounced so many Ages ago against the Novatian Hereticks who introduced an humane Church Ecclesiam humanam faciunt And in this they make themselves like the Libertines of our times who reduce all Religion into Policy and deserve as well as they to bear the name of Politicks which they would injuriously and falsly attribute unto the Church and its Pastors by representing and rendring as much as they can both their Authority and Government altogether humane and politick FINIS