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
be gained and used lawfully though the cause upon which it is demanded be false and that it be grounded on no reason at all He demands l Num sit peccatum mortale dispensationem concedere seu impetrare eaque uti fine justa causa Granadus affirmat At Sanchez de matrimonio c. 3. disp 18. n. 10. probabile putat nec esse veniale peccatum uti dispensatione obtenta sine causa Escobar Theol. mor. tract 1. exam 16. c. 4. n. 32. p. 236. whether it be a mortal sin to demand a dispensation without just cause and to make use of it in the same manner He answers that Granado holds that it is but Sanchez believes that it is probable that it is not so much as a venial sin to make use of a dispensation obtained without cause His reason is m Quia jam lex relaxata est unde nec ad veniale remanet obligatio because the Law having once lost its force it obliges no more and it may be rejected without venial sin That is to say that because one fault is made a second may be made without fault For he affirms that it is a sin at least venial to demand a dispensation without just cause and he holds that having once obtained it we may use it even without venial sin This is as if he should say that having once gotten goods unjustly we may enjoy them without injustice He adds n Concedere autem ant impetrare sine causa veniale alii solummodo putant in gravi dispensatione Ibid. that some believe that it is but a venial sin to demand or to grant a dispensation without cause and then onely when the dispensation is of consequence It appears therefore that according to these people that it will be no sin even venial when the dispensation is not important And so all the Laws of the Church shall be exposed to contempt and mens malice who may procure themselves to be dispensed with therein by lyes and falsities and after serve themselves with those dispensations without committing more then venial sin which passeth for nothing with the Jesuits After this it will be found less strange which the same Escobar saith that when a dispensation is procured upon any just cause the cause ceasing yet the very same dispensation may be made use of o Cessat dispensationis causa num dispensatio cesset Negative respondet Salas Sanchez affirmat Ibid. n. 36. Doth the dispensation cease saith he when the cause upon which it was obtaineth ceaseth He answers that Salas holds the negative but Sanchez holds the contrary Both these Doctors are capable to make that opinion probable And therefore we may follow whether we please according to the Jesuits From this principle Granado and Diana draw many conclusions remarkable in the practick p Cum quo dispensatum est propter morbum in esu carnium potest vesci his licet omnino convaluerit That a person who hath obtained a dispensation to eat flesh on prohibited days because he is sick may continue to eat though he be well recovered q Cum quo propter infirmitatem dispâ—nsatum est in voto Religionis postquam couvaluit non tenetur That one who hath procured a dispensation from a Religious vow because of some infirmity is not obliged to his vow no not after he is healed of his infirmity r Cum quo propter infirmitatem oculorum dispensatum est in onere recitandi horas etsi convaluerit non tenetur legere That an Ecclesiastick who hath obtained a dispensation from reading his Breviary because of some infirmity in his eyes is not obliged to read after he is healed All these things are very probable if that be true which Escobar hath told us above that a dispensation may be demanded without any reasonable cause and afterwards be made use of without sin they are also even certain and evident if as he hath said with Salas a dispensation determineth not though the cause upon which it was obtained cease But this is to prove a lesse disorder by a greater and practices which are bad by a principle corrupt and erroneous this is to open a door to all loosness and libertinsme and to despise all the Laws of the Church He proposes also a like case Å¿ Tempore praesationis quis venit ad Sacrum audiendum quod unice â—bbratur Teneturne illâ—m singularis illius Sacrificii partem audire Sanch. Suar. teneâ—i asserunt Quod illa sit praecipua sacri pars ego autem probabiâ—iter assero non tâ—…i quâ—a per illum partem Missae non potest implere praeceptum De Escob mor. Theoi tract 1. exam 11. v. 4. n. 108. There being but one Mass said in a Church a man comes there when they are rehearsing the Preface it is demanded whether he be obliged to hear the remainder of that single Mass Sanchez and Suarez say that he is because this is the principal part of the Mass but I hold that it is probable that he is not obliged because he cannot accomplish the precept of hearing Mass by hearing that part We may conclude by this that he who cannot pay all his Debt is not obliged to pay what he can and that weakness discharges him of what he can as well as what he cannot Caramouel reports many like cases whereupon the resolutions are sometimes so extravagant that he is obliged to disown them or at least to dissemble that he approves them though he affirms that they are conformable to the principles of the Doctrine of Probability and that they follow necessarily from the Doctrine of Diana whom he professes to follow throughout as they both follow the Jesuits Sequemur agnum hoc est Dianam quocumque ierit These extravagant cases are these t Juxta mores rubricas Monasticas in Officio solenni habemus 12 lectiones totidem responsoria quae non recitat Communitas sed audit tantum Ergo si siat 24 in Choro singuli dicant simul lectionem responsorium satisfacient praecepto legendi 12 lectiones totidem responsoria Caram Theol. sund p. 225. seq In Monasteries where according to the custom and rules of the Office on solemn Feast dayes twelve Lessons and as many Responsals are said which the whole Community rehearses not but hears only there are found 24 Monks in the Quire by distributing the 12 Lessons to 12 Monks and the 12 Responsals to 12 others and causing them read all together and at the same time every one his Lesson or his Responsal whereof he hath charge they will satisfie their obligation to read 12 Lessons and 12 Responsals The second is u Quando duo legunt simul non erit opus ut alter alterum expeâ—…et sed poterit alter incipere versum sequentem antequam alter praecedentem absolvat quoniam potest simul se socium audire nec est cur ad
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
and to oppose themselves to those that teach them as the Shepherds obliged to resist the Wolves who would devour their stock Yet they omitted not to have recourse to the Authority of the Church and to address their complaints and requests to my Lords the Bishops and to the General Assembly of the Clergie of France in the year 1656. who seeing that it was not at all in their power at that time to do them justice did at least make it known to the whole Church that opportunity only was wanting unto them And for that cause ordained that the Instructions of S. Charles should be imprinted by the order of the Clergie with a circular Letter to all my Lords the Prelates which served to prejudge their opinions and to give as it were a commencement to the condemnation of all these Maxims in general expecting till some opportunity were offered to do it more solemnly The voice of these charitable Pastors was heard and faithfully followed by their sheep who by the submission they owed to them and through the confidence which they had in their honesty and sufficiency entred into an aversion against this new Doctrine as soon as it was declared unto them that it was contrary to the Doctrine of the Church and that of the holy Fathers It were also to be wished that this same voice which came from Heaven being Jesus Christ speaks in the Church by its Pastors had turned or at leastwise stayed the Authors of this Doctrine and had kept them in silence and that they had themselves also suppressed these strange opinions and pernicious Maxims against which they saw the whole World to rise with a general indignation and with a most just zeal But this did nothing but provoke them yet more so that instead of receiving Christian-like the charitable correction of these worthy Pastors of Souls they had the confidence to appear in publick to maintain so great Errours by Writings yet more wicked imitating those fierce beasts who issue in fury out of the Forests and Dens to defend their young when they are about to be taken from them My Masters the Parochial Rectors had by an extraordinary temperance and moderation suppressed the names of the Jesuits and not distinguished them from the other Casuists attacquing the Doctrine only without touching the persons of any particular Order But these good Fathers could neither lye hid nor keep silence and judged themselves unworthy of the favour which they had received upon this occasion And as if this Doctrine had been their own particularly they would needs declare themselves the Defenders of it as indeed they are the principal and even the first Authors thereof in many of its most important points They made for it an Apologie wherein so very far were they from disavowing and retracting those pernicious Maxims wherewith they were reproached that they did highly maintain them and to testifie that they never intended to recant them they have declared that in many matters wherein their excesses are most visible they can yet speak more and give yet more licence to their spirits An evil so publick and so obstinate cannot be healed nor stayed by simple words Which thing hath obliged my Masters the Parochial Rectors to renew their complaints and their instances to my Lords the Prelates Some of them have already worthily acquitted themselves in this their duty to the Church and People who depend on their charge And it is hoped that the zeal and charity of the rest will press them to give the same testimony unto the truth and that if some of them for some particular reasons cannot do it so solemnly as they desire yet they will not cease to condemn in their hearts and upon occasions which shall be offered this novel Doctrine and to keep those whom they can at a distance from it as a most pernicious Divinity After all this it was thought to be high time farther to discover this Doctrine and to represent it in the whole extent it hath in the Books of the Jesuits that the corruption and the venom of it might be better known It had been to little purpose to have done it sooner because that the excess and overthrow it hath given to all the true Rules of Morality and Christian piety are so great and so incredible that the world having yet never heard any thing like unto it would have been surprized at the novelty and impiety of the principal Maxims of these dreadful Morals so that many would have been troubled to believe it others would have been offended at it and many would have altogether neglected it and would not so much as have taken the pains only to have informed themselves so far as that they might not suffer themselves to be surprized therein The Jesuits themselves would not have failed to have broken out into complaints calumnies and impostures which are common with them in use against such as discover their secrets and the shame of their Divinity and they would have employed all their artifices and disguises to elude or obscure the most clear things wherewith they should have been reproached though they had been represented simply as they are expressed in their Books But yet notwithstanding that these pernicious Maxims had been confounded and decryed by my Masters the Parochial Rectors fulminated by the censures of the Bishops there is cause to hope that exposing them to the day will be useful to many of the Faithful and hereby will be seen more clearly the justice and necessity of the pursuits which the Parochial Rectors made for obtaining a censure of them the equity of the Judgment of the Prelates made in pursuance thereof and the obligation which all the Faithful have upon them to stiffle these Monsters of Errour and Impiety which multiply continually and prey upon the Church So that this will even contribute very much to redouble the submission and confidence which they ought to have towards their Pastors seeing from what mischiefs their vigilance and their zeal hath preserved them and with what prudence and wisdom they have conducted them in this affair having not discovered the greatness of the evil to them before as it may be said they had delivered them from it And it may also come to pass that the Authors and Defenders of these wicked Doctrines may themselves be surprized and have horrour when they see together in a sequence of Principles and Conclusions the opinions which they have maintained to this present Because it is very common for things good or evil which apart make no great impression upon the spirit surprize and touch it powerfully when as they are united and joyned together There is also cause to believe that many of those who have followed unto this present these novel Maxims of the Jesuits only because they did not perceive all the unhappy consequences and pernicious effects of them now coming to know them as this Book will give them means to do will relinquish them
Azor. Pag. 378 Article IV. That the Jesuits teach that the Church cannot command spiritual and internal Actions that its Laws and Guidance are humane that it is it self only a Politick Body Sanchez Filliutius Layman Amicus Escobar Celot Pag. 385 THE FIRST BOOK Of the Inward and Outward Principles of SIN THE FIRST PART Of the Inward Principles of Sin These Principles are Lust Ignorance Ill Habits the Intention and the Matter or the Object of Sin I will treat severally of these five internal principles of Sin in so many different Chapters CHAPTER I. Of Lust in general CHarity and Lust divide our whole life these are the two Trees of the Gospel of which the one produceth alwayes good fruits and the other can produce none but bad As all the good which we do comes from the Spirit of God who works it in us and causes us to do it forming in our hearts those good desires which are as it were the seed thereof in the same manner Concupiscence which every one beateth within him is the general source of all the temptations which we feel or to speak better it is a continual temptation which carries us on to evil and sin in drawing us without ceasing by secret sollicitations to sensual and temporal good which serve for a bait and entertainment to our passions This is that which made St. Leo to say a Nullum peccatum sine cupiditate committitur omnis illicitus appetitus illius aviditatis est morbus S. Leo Serm. 9. de Passione cap. 4. That he committed no sin without lust and that every unlawfull desire is a sicknesse and disorder which comes from that violent motion which carries us on unto evil So that to justifie that the Divinity of the Jesuits makes an entertainment for sin we need no other proof neither can any better be brought than to shew that it favoureth and nourisheth the lusts of men as much as it can upon all occasions as I shall make clearly appear in the whole progresse of this Book by the simple representation of their Opinions and their Maximes This Chapter of Lust in general will notwithstanding not be unprofitable for that as our bodies are so composed of four qualities and four humours that there is alwayes one which is predominant and prevails above all others and which at length gives the name unto the temperament and causes one to be stiled melancholique and another cholerique thus likewise our souls are so I will not say composed but corrupted by the lusts and passions which sin hath produced therein that there is no person who carries them not all in his bosome enclosed in concupiscence which is thereof the spring and principle although they appear not nor act altogether equally in all sorts of persons yet there is commonly one more strong than the rest which domineers in every person and which seems to be as it were proper unto him adhering to his nature his age his manner of living and his condition or profession so we see that the lusts and passions of young people are other than those of the ancient that those of persons of great Birth are different from those of Peasants and Artificers and those of Merchants from those of Lawyers For this cause that I may compleatly accomplish the design I have undertaken to prove that the Divinity of the Jesuits doth favour the lusts and passions of men so much as is possible for it and consequently those sins which are the products and effects thereof I will make it appear that in every condition and profession they cherish the lust and vice which is peculiar thereunto as namely the covetousnesse and frauds of Merchants the Ambition and Vanity of the Nobility the in justice of Officers But first of all I will say something in general of the more common lusts and passions which are found in all men and are in them as it were the spring of corruption the matter of vices and the cause of all sins as Hate Pride Covetousness Vncleanness Gluttony and Injustice For this purpose I will divide this first Chapter into 6. Articles ARTICLE I. Of Hatred That the Divinity of the Jesuits entertains aversions against our Neighbour that it permits to wish and do him ill and even to kill him though it be for temporal concernments yea though also you be assured that in killing him you damn him BAuny in his Summe after he had delivered unto us the marks of an irreconcilable hatred in these terms a Bauny in his Summe ch 7. p. 81. The third mark of hatred against our neighbour is not to be willing to accompany him to have such an alienation and so violent from him as not to refuse to talk with him upon any matter whatsoever nor to assist him in his businesse or not to pardon him at all when he acknowledges his fault and offers reasonable satisfaction And after he hath reported two authorities and two passages one of St. Ambrose and the other of St. Austen in which these holy Doctors shew us the obligation we have to love and wish well to one another and to serve one another as members of the same body he concludes boldly in this manner Notwithstanding I believe it is no mortal sin to be wanting in these points if it be not in case of scandal that is to say it is never or almost never mortal sin according to the doctrine which he establisheth Chap. 39. p. 623. that a man is not capable of the sin of scandal but when by a formal design he doth some thing to destroy his neighbours soul which is a design of hell and which seems not easily to come into the spirits of other persons than the damned and Devils Anthony de Escobar sayes the same thing briefly in his Moral Divinity where after he hath put this question b An indignatio non volentis videre vel audire eum cui irascitur sit mortale peccatum Communites veniale esse Toletus affirmat De Escob Tract 2. Exam. 2. de peccatis n. 98. p. 304. If that indignation which is the cause that a man will neither see nor speak with him against whom he is angry be a mortal sin He answers that Tolet assures us That ordinarily this is but a venial sin The words of this Jesuit are of great weight with his Society because first of all he professes to advance nothing of his own and withall to borrow nothing of Authors that are strangers but only to report in every matter the opinion of the Doctors and Writers of the Society c Hoc ingenue profitear me nihil toto libello scripsisse quod Societatis Jesu non acceperim ex Doctore Quas enim proprias passim resolutiones innuo ex schola Societatis aperte deductas existimaverim De Escobar in Idaea operis in fine I sincerely declare saith he that I have written nothing in all this Book which I have not taken out of some Doctor
ex Doctorum meorum mente Escobar tr 2. Exam. 1. n. 58. p. 215. that it is sin to co-operate to the sin of another and that he that contributes to it only at distance sins not at all He inquires Whether it may be said that he co-operates to the sin of another as a near cause who lends his Chamber to his friend to corrupt himself with women to the end that he may avoid some great evil I answer no saith he according to the opinion of my Masters He would have us know that this is not his particular private opinion nor of two or three but of all his Fraternity and especially of the 24. elders whom he had taken for his Masters and whom he makes profession to follow ex Doctorum meorum mente And the reason of this answer is g Quia tal is commâ—datio tubiculi ex se est indifferens sola abutent is voluntate vitiatur Ioid. because to lend a Chamber in this manner is a thing of it self indifferent and is rendred bad only by the evil intention of him that abuseth it This Author speaks yet more largely and makes many questions about the good offices which one friend may do for another and a servant to his Master in Tredtise 1. Examen 1. page 285. But I passe all this in silence as many other things which I could relate out of other Jesuits to cut short as much as I can a matter whereof I desire not to speak at all I will only observe farther that which he saith in the 7th Treatise Examen 4. chap. 8. p. 835. which is as it were an abridgement of all that which he had said and is in a manner all that can be said or done in this matter according to the rules and morals of the Jesuits For the 7. and 8. Chapters of the book which I have now cited are intitled The first h Praxis cirâ—a materiam de poenitentia ex Societatis Jesu Doctoribus The practice upon the matter of penance taken out of the Doctors of the Society of Jesus And the other which follows immediately i Practicae adbue speciaâ—es resolutiones Confessarium ad munus recte obeundum instruentes Other decisions of particular cases for the instruction of Confessors how they may well discharge their offices In the latter of these two Chapters he makes this question concerning the Confessor k Quonam modo se geret cum libidials mediatore n. 223. p. 835. How shall he deal with those persons who mediate betwixt debauched persons First he makes some distinctions about things which a Confessor ought to tolerate and those things which he is to forbid these persons after he saith that all indifferent things are lawfull for them and by consequence that they ought not be forbidden them And to relieve the Confessor he observes unto him in particular many actions he calls indifferent l Indicaâ—o quaenam actiones communiter à famulis assumptaeind fferentes siat parare equum quo dominus prosecturus est ad amasiae domum cum mibi commorantem foris cuslodire amasiae mensam apponere chos praeparare ad domum reducere epistolas desâ—…re de quarum turpitudine gravi non moraliter conslet Escobar tract 7. Exam. 4. n. 223. p. 835. I will observe unto you saith he in particular what actions are indifferent amongst the services which Masters are wont to receive from their servants to saddle the horse on which their Master must go to see his Mistresse to stand at the door and keep it so long as his Master stayes with her to make ready diet to cover the table and wait at it to bring his Master home again to carry Letters if he be not assured that they are extremely dishonest That is to say that it sufficeth that the servant be not assured that they are full of words and discourses manifestly filthy but that he beleeveth that his Master will content himself to testifie discreetly to her whom he loveth the affection which he beareth her which he expresseth by these words which he addeth m Licot affectu sint exaratae Ibid. 832. Though they be written with passion He also sets down in the number of services which servants may do their Masters on these occasions n Dona fâ—rre ac reserre ostia aut fenâ—stias aperire domum amasiae ostendere auxilium domino paaestare ut ascendat Ibid. p. 832. To carry and bring back presents to shew her house whom his Master loves to open the doors or windows for him to help his Master to get over a wall or to passe through a window as he saith expresly in another place and to hold the ladder if the wall or the window be too high There may be many of those people whom he calls mediatores libidinis mediators for lust who are grown old in the mystery without ever having known or practised all that which he teaches and I am assured that he will not find any so hard or so untoward who will not be content and serve himself very advantageously of what he allows him But I doubt whether the most obdurate and desperate can give credit unto his word and that of his Fraternity which permits them to do that in Conscience and before God which the light of reason alone and the resentments of honour which remains unto them in so miserable a profession represents unto them as so shamefull and infamous that they are constrained to hide themselves therein from men and to blush secretly in the presence of God He hath only forgotten to speak in this place of the appointments which a servant may make with a Curtesan on the behalf of his Master if it be not that he beleeved that this was sufficiently comprised in the words which I have related epistolas deferre licet affectu sint exaratae to carry letters though they be passionately written or in these others a little above n Literae quibus advocatur amasia indifferentes sunt Ibid. n. 223. Tract 2. Exam. 2. n. 61. p. 286. The letters which a man writes to her whom he loveth or whom he keepeth to desire her to come and meet him are indifferent things Notwithstanding for the convenience of a Confessor whom he pretends to instruct as well as for the repose of the conscience of these honourable mediators it seems to him that he ought to explicate it a little more clearly or at least to remit them to the place where he decides this controversie more clearly and places it in the rank of things indifferent and by consequence lawful in this traffique o Dicere nomine heri concubinae Dominus dicit ut hac nocte expectes aut in domum accedas aut signare locum ubi sit concubina tr 2. Exam. 2. n. 61. p. 286. For a servant to say on the behalf of his Master to a woman my Master commands me to tell you that you
proper to make one vomit though it be taken in a quantity excessive for a sound man but not for a sick man m Adjecit Toletus tune licere quande non timetur ex ebrietate aliquod malum secuturum quod assolet ebrietatem comitari Tolet saith the same thing adding notwithstanding a condition to exempt him from sin who makes himself drunk by a maxim of health that there be no cause to fear that there arise from his drunkennesse any of those evils which are wont to accompany it But Escobar who relates this limitation of Tolet refutes it at the same time n Quam quidem limitationem tanti viri pace dixerim inutilem judico quià cum directè valetudini consulitur cuncta mala sequentia accidentaria reputantur Escobar ibid. n. 63. pag. 299. This great man saith he shall pardon me if I say that in my judgement this limitation is needlesse for when a man doth any thing with a formal design to provide for his health all the evils that happen in consequence thereof are to be esteemed as coming by accident And without doubt it is for this very cause and in consequence of this principle that he saith a little after that though a man know that he shall fall into pollution by excessive eating and drinking it is no great fault a Gulae indulges nimis venialiter ex ejusmodi nimietate praevides futuram in somnis pollutionem num sit grave gulae ex hoc capite flagitium Escobar tr 2. ex 2. n. 101. pag. 304. You sin venially saith he in suffering your self to exceed in gluttony But you foresee that this excesse will cause you to fall into nocturnal pollution Thus you have the case He demands if for this cause this excesse of Gluttony be a great sin And taking Lessius for his warrant he answers with him b Ex Lessio respondeo non esse culpam mortalem si pollutionem per se non intendant per hujnsmodi cibum potum non procurent that it is no mortal sin if one have not a formal design to procure pollution by eating and drinking excessively in that manner He had already said the same thing and that also with advantage in the first Treatise For here he speaks of pollution which comes by a venial intemperance but there he speaks of that which arises from an excesse which is mortal c Peccat quis mortaliter in nimio cibo potu teneturne se reum sequent is pollutionis habere A person saith he sins mortally by eating and drinking too much is he obliged to hold himself guilty of the pollution which follows upon it This is the second time that he proposes this difficulty He answers expresly in the sequel of the discourse d Minimè si praeter intentionem accidit Escobar tr 1. ex 8. n. 76. p. 151. If it happen unto him besides his intention he is not guilty though he did fore-see that it would befall him upon it as he had said already And Sanchez saith the same expresly upon the same difficulty e Pollutio praevisa in causa nec intenta quae ex sola gula mortali provenit non est mortalis Sanch. op mor. l. 1. c. 16. n. 44. p. 75. When pollution comes through an excesse of gluttony which is a mortal sin it is not a mortal sin though it were fore-seen if one had no intention to procure it He doth not only excuse this crime but all others likewise as sottish discourses impudencies extravagances quarrels and murthers themselves which a drunken man may commit when he is drunk For proposing this question f Quando quis culpa sua morta li inebriatur ebrius factus committit peccata quae defectu rationis non est in sua potestate vitare difficult as est an baec peccata ratione impotentiae aut ignorantiae excusentur Ibid. n. 41. When a man is drunk by his own fault and being drunk committeth sins which are yet in his power to avoid because he hath lost his reason the difficulty is to know whether his impotence and ignorance excuse these sins After he had reported the opinion of many of whom some answer with distinction and others condemn absolutely as mortal sins all the crimes which are committed in drunkennesse he concludes g Dicendum est etiamsi eventus soleat esse frequenter ei qui inebriatur si tamen tempore quo voluit inebriari non habuit prorsus ullam dubitationem aut cogitationem de illis nec in specie nec in genere minimè imputari culpae Ibid. that we must affirm that though these accidents do commonly befall a person when he is drunk yet they are not imputed to him for sin if when he designed to be drunk he had no suspition nor any thought of these things neither in general nor in particular But for fear that drunkards should abuse that liberty which he gives them or rather that they may make use thereof with more assurance and without scruple he gives them this charitable advice that when they have a mind to be drunk they take along with them such pre-cautions as possible they can for hindring those evil accidents to which they know by experience that they are subject whilst they are drunk that they may not befall them h Ea autem adhibita etsi postea eveniam non imputabuntur because that otherwise they would be answerable for them whereas after this pre-caution all the crimes and abominations which they can commit being drunk shall not be imputed unto them at all according to him no more than if when they went to be drunk it never came in their minde to foresee that such consequences might follow from their drunkennesse for this cause he saith purposely si advertat if he perceive it And though the same thought should come into his minde and as he goes to debauch though some friend should admonish him or his conscience and his own proper light represent unto him the excesse unto which he is wont to be transported while he is drunk yet if he be not carried thereunto commonly but by the occasion of other persons who provoke him thereto he beleeves that he is for this never the more obliged to keep himself from being drunk and he is even dispensed with from having any care of avoyding these bad effects in his drunkenness a Duo tamen observanda sunt prius est ebrios non communiter perpetrare ea quae alias peccata essent nisi ab altis irritatos ita communiter esse à casu nec teneri ebrios ea praecavere quod irritantium culpae id potius tribuendum est ac respectu ebriorum casu accident Ibid. num 42. Notwithstanding here are two things to be observed saith he The first is that men who are drunk do not ordinarily those actions which are sins when they are comitted by other
Fagundez dec tract 2. lib. 8. c. 26. aliquid posse accipi non solum ab electoribus ad majoralum cathedram capellam sed etiam à Judice quando ut supponitur Sententiam profert in casu aequali seclusa lege positiva in contrarium quia pro suo arbitratu potest cuitibet parti dare victoriam quare datur locus gratificationi quae est pretio aestimabilis utpote quae plerumque cum jactura amicitiae alterius partis conjuncta est Escobar Tract 3. exam 2. n. 111. p. 363. Suppose saith he that the right of the parties be equal may the Judge take any thing for judging Fagundez saith that this is Lawfull not onely to the electors who are to name a man to a majorality to a Chair or a Chappel but also for a Judge when the right seems equal on both sides if there be no positive Law to forbid it because that in this case the Judge may give the advantage to whether he pleaseth And this is the reason because he may do a favour and this favour may be valued by money because for the most part he loseth the friendship of one of the parties It is in the self same manner and for the same reason that Layman said before speaking of a man who had been employed as an assassinate f Molestia periculum ab illo in tuam gratiam susceptum pretio aestimabile est that the painy which he took and the danger whereunto he was exposed to do this favour is a thing which may be valued by money Lessius and the same Layman make use of the same reason to justifie him who takes money for concealing the crime of another g Siqâ—dem jus accusandi quo ille se privatâ— prâ—tiâ— aestimibile est Because that the right which he hath to accuse whereof he deprives himself is valuable by money So that these people subject all things to interest and set every thing to sale at a price for money the lives of men Justice and even which they that call favour which ceaseth to be a favour when it is bought or sold out The reason for which Escobar proves that judgement may be sold is considerable h Utpote quae plerumque cumjactara amicitiae alterinâ— partis conjuncta est For saith he it doth commonly make him lose the friendship of one of the parties For according to this strange rule of Justice a Judge may almost always take money because it happens almost always that he cannot do Justice to the one party without offending the other so that he may cause himself to be recompensed in money by him who gains his cause for that which he believes he shall lose by losing the friendship of him whom he condemns I speak not of these injustices here but onely so far as they contain unfaithfulness in them and deceit reserving it to another place that is to say to that wherein I shall handle the duties of Judges to make appear that the Divinity of the Jesuits extends this power which it gives them for money to preferre one party before the other in equal right even unto that case also wherein the right of him who is to be preferred is lesse probable 12. Finally he furnisheth the Ecclesiasticks as well as others with expedients to cheat men in their profession and in the exercise of their charge I do lay aside an infinite of disguisements and jugling tricks which they teach and practise themselves in the conduct of souls and in the administration of Sacraments of which abundance of examples will be found in this extract particularly when we speak of confession I shall produce here onely one or two of the most sensible and grosse i Sapientissimus quondam Pater de Sa nostrae Societatis Gabrielis Vasquez Magister de re Theologica in Complutensi Academia optime meritus dixit non peccare eum qui finxit talem se genere seu genealogia qualem requirit Religio aliquaa vel qualem ad praebendas dignitates requirit aliqua Ecclesia quia causa ad admittendum in Religionem debet esse Dei vocatio desiderium perfectoonis ad praebendus merita candidatorum Dicastillus l. 2. tract 2. disp 6. dub 5. n. 106. Dicastillus assures us that it is the opinion of Father Sa Master of Gabriel Vasquez one of the most wise Fathers of their Society Doctor of the Vniversity of Alcala to whom Divinity is greatly obliged that he sins not at all who saith that he is so noble as is requisite for him to enter into certain orders of religion or to certain dignities and prebendies Because saith he the cause for which persons ought to be admitted into a religious order should be the calling of God and a desire to be religious And as for prebends it ought to be merit in those who demand them 1. This great man will have none enter into a religious order for his nobility as a necessary condition but he consents well enough that he enter therein by lying and cousenage 2. If a man may enter into an order of Religion and into Ecclesiastick offices by vocation as he saith which is most true it follows that if he be permitted to enter thereunto by lying God calls lyars and cheats into the Ecclesiastick state Escobar propounds this question k Licetne peccatori occulto indisposito ad vitandum scandalum par iculam non conseâ—ratam ministrare Posse aliqui docent Escobar tract 7. exam 6. num 41. pag. 867. Whether it be lawfull in administring the communion to give to a sinner not disposed but who is not known for such an one an Hoast which is not consecrated to the end he might avoid scandal He answers there are some who holds he may do it But to make this Invention to succeed the better he adjoyns thereunto another for avoyding a great inconvenience which without that might happen there upon l Posse aliqui docent modo particula ita occultetur ut nec videatur nec adoretur There are who say that this may be done saith the Jesuit provided that this Hoast which is not consecrated be so well hid that no body see it or worship it But what means is there to put this Hoast that is not consecrated into the mouth of him who communicates that neither he nor those who are near him may see it And when none do see it how can you hinder him who receives it believing that it is the body of Jesus Christ that he adore it not since none receive the Hoast without adoring it I know not whether Escobar have seen these inconveniences which follow upon this new practice For though he doth not disapprove it absolutely he gives therein another practice which likes him better m Ast ego cum Henriquez l. 6. c. 22. n. 4. satius censerem simulare Sacerdotem se particulam in os peccatoris immisisse Ibid. For me saith
grace and receiving absolution He saw well enough that this passe was dangerous and that the answer he was about to make to this question was of it self odious and scandalous For this reason he causes to march in his front a good number of Authors as it were to sound the ford and to be his guarde The first he produces is de Baia whom he makes mouth to them all and to answer absolutely yea He alledges Navarre after making him to confirm this opinion and to assure us that we may not constrain this penitent to abandon that traffick which is so perillous unto him He puts Emanuel Sa last saying that he declareth that upon the penitents refusal to quit his traffique we may not refuse him absolution provided that he and those others with whom he is accustomed to sin found their refusal upon some good and lawful cause as not to be able to dispense therewith without giving the world subject to talk of or that they themselve should thence receive some inconvenience For otherwise say they he speaks of others whom he cited we cannot refuse them absolution dummodo firmiter proponant so that they strongly insist on it After these Authors he is more confident and speaks with more assurance p. 712. saying that though the occasion of sin be as it were certain neverthelesse because it is not affected nor sought out in a frolick and without necessity because we cannot avoid the dangers that are joyned thereunto without scandal without concerning therein our honours and our goods it follows that to persevere therein is no fault by the fourth rule of right quod non est licitum in lege necessitas facit licitum what is not lawful by law is made lawful by necessity The same man in the 5. q. pag. 715. demands what is to be done with men-servants and maid-servants Cousins of both sexes Masters and Maids who mutually engage and aid one another in sin or such as take occasion from the house where they are or occasions they have therein To answer this question he makes use of the same artifice he made use of in answering the former which is to make others to speak and to cover himself under their shadow When the relapses saith he are frequent and as it were dayly Navarre in 3. chap. num 31. Graff l. 1. c. 30. num 23. Suarez part 3. t. 4. d. 32. s 2. holds that they must be sent back And a little after If notwithstanding add they they offend onely rarely together as once or twice a month they may be absolved concurrentibus quatuor praedictis quorum quatuor scilicei causa notabilis est quod non possint sine magno incommodo detrimento separari Those four things concurring of which four the remarkable cause is that they cannot be separated without great inconvenience and dammage See here the Law of God put in ballance with temporal goods on one side the Law of God forbids sin and to avoid it commands to flie from the occasions of it on the other side commodity interest and pretence of honour ingage in perpetual danger and in as it were certain occasion of sin In these occasions the good which is found in these temporal things is no longer slender and of no consequence as Bauny spoke before to remove envie out of the number of mortal sin he declares here on the behalf of Emanuel Sa that it is a good and lawful cause and on the part of Navarre that it is a very considerable occasion and finally he doth not onely make use of it as of a good excuse but he forms thereout a kind of necessity which dispenseth with the Law of God abusing this text of right a Qâ—od non est licitum in lege necessitas faciâ— licitum That necessity makes that lawful which is not lawful by the Law which is to be understood onely of things which are indifferent in themselves and not of things which are in themselves and essentially naught and dishonest as these of which I speak are In consequence of this principle and this rule the Jesuits judging also of sin by the object and matter when this object is spiritual and the matter invisible or little exteriourly the sins can be onely sleight ones according to their judgement Whence it comes to pass that they acknowledge hardly any mortal sins of curiosity idleness pride vanity and other spiritual vices of like kinde and these vices must passe unto some sensible matter and different from their own and in some notable outward excesse to make them mortal according to them as we have already remarked speaking of coveteousness concerning which Escobar relating the opinions of the principal Divines of the Society acknowledges no crime if it be not accompanied with some circumstance contrary to Justice and when he treats of pride and ambition and of boasting he finds also nothing which approacheth so much as near to mortal sin if this vice do not proceed unto some great excesse against the honor of God or our Neighbour if by a perversion altogether extraordinary it do not blinde a man so far as to make him say with the King of Tyre I am God See here the passage entire which deserves to be represented also here though we have already rehearsed it elsewhere because it is very remarkable b Tunc ad mortale accederet quando aut graviter Dâ—i revereatia laederetur aut proximi fama Fit equidem cum gravi Dei irreverentia cum in morem Regis Tyri dixerit satuus Ego sum Deus proximue outem gravi injuria afficitur quando quis cum Pharisaeo jactat Non sum sicut iste Publicanus Escobar tr 2. exam 2. num 9. pag. 291. If boasting do not ably offend against the honour of God or the reputation of our Neighbour it proceeds unto mortal sin now the honour of God is remarkably burt by pride and boasting when a man is such a fool as to say with the King of Tyre I am God and when he boasteth himself like the Pharisee in saying I am not like this Publican he offends grievously his Neighbour namely him whom he so speaks of These two cases excepted and some other such like which he observes he holds that ambition vanity and boasting cannot proceed unto mortal sin and that so long as these vices continue that they are of their own peculiar nature so long as vanity continues simple vanity pride is simple pride and they exceed not their own proper matter they are ordinarily but venial sins By consequence of this same principle sins which are committed against vertues purely spiritual and against the most Divine and elevated things which we enjoy such as are the Word of God and his Truth Religion and the most Holy Functions of Religion provided they be not extraordinary are onely venial and it is the excesse onely that renders them mortal and this excesse also must not be common This made Emanuel
Sa to affirm c Fabellam recitare ut auditores excitentur ad pie audiendum non est peccatum Sa verh Praedicare num 5. p. 378. that it was no sin to make fabulous relations in Sermons to stir up the auditors attention and devotion He speaks also more clearly in another place where he saith d Mentiri in concione in pertinentibus ad doctrinam quidam aiunt esse mortale alii non semper quod intellige si sit materia levis Sa verb. Mendacium num 2. pag. 494. that there are some who hold that it is always mortal sin to tell a lye in Preaching on any Doctrinal point but others deny it And he relates the opinion of these latter adding onely that it must be understood onely when the matter is sleight If to lye in the chair in points of Doctrine according to this Jesuit be but a venial sin he without doubt would make no great matter of lyes which a Preacher should speak in other matters and it may be he might give them in this the same liberty that he gives them to tell tales generally and without exception He condemns them not more rigorously who tell lyes in confession e Mentiri in consessions de peccatis venialibus out de aliis confessis mortalibus veniale solum peccatum est etiamsi illa antea apud se proposuisset vere confiteri Sa verb. Confessio n. 12. p. 88. It is but a venial sin saith he to lye unto a Confessor in confessing venial or mortal sins formerly confessed though after resolution to confesse them truly Escobar saith the same and adds some thing f Mendacium de peccaâ—o veniali veniale est nisi illud veniale esset totalis confessionis materia quia tunc daretur absolutio fine materia Sacramentum nullum esset Suarez tom 4. n. 3. par disp 22. sect 10. n. 6. Alii negant quia omne mendacium de veniali est res levis Escob tr 7. ex 4. n. 107. p. 816. Suarez holds saith he that to lye in confessing a venial sin is but a venial sin provided that this venial sin be not all the matter of the confession for in this case the absolution will have no subject and the Sacrament will be nul Others hold the contrary for that a lye which consists in a sleight and venial matter is always sleight A lyetold in confession and which makes the Sacrament null in the judgement of this Jesuit and of those whose judgement he reports seems to him a very sleight thing to furnish matter for a mortal sin though it destroy a Sacrament and turn it into an action profane and sacrilegious It is easie to see if this be to honour the Truth and the Sacrament of penance which by a particular reason may be called the Sacrament of Truth because there a man acknowledgeth that which he is truly confessing himself a sinner before God and confessing his sins before a Priest who holds the place of God nevertheless this Divinity teaches that it is no great matter to lye in this Sacrament and that fault committed herein ought to be considered according to the matter of the sin rather then by the holinesse of the Sacrament in such manner that if the matter about which the lye is told be not an important thing in it self the sin is but sleight though thereby the Sacrament be profaned made nul and sacrilegious This Jesuit commits yet a greater extravagance against the truth when he saith that it may be opposed with a resolution altogether formal that is to say by pure malice though it be acknowledged in the heart without becoming guilty of any great fault g Impugnaeâ—e perspicuam veritatem animo impugnandt contradicendi est peccatum grave aut leve juxta materiae gravitatem aut levitatem Escobar tract 2. exam 2. cap. 1. num 14. pag. 292 To conflict with the truth saith he which is evident with a formal design to oppose and contradict it is great or little according as the truth in hand is of great or little consequence He considers not the greatness of the Majesty of God who is encountred in the Truth and who is Truth it self neither doth he any more consider the wicked disposition of him who impugnes the truth by an aversion or contempt which he hath towards it opposing it by a formal design to resist and destroy it though he know it evidently animo impugnandi contradicendi perspicuam veritatem If when the King speaks any of his Officers should rise up and contradict him publickly in a thing which he knew himself to be just and true being induced to this excesse onely by insolence and to oppose himself against the King and to contradict him without cause it is certain he would be treated as in guilty of high treason and his action would passe in the judgement of all the world for an unsufferable outrage and contempt of Royal Majesty though the subject upon which he thus opposed the King were not of great importance And yet Escobar would that it should be accompted but a sleight fault to deal thus with God and his Truth One passage alone of Sanchez which I will rehearse here may suffice to prove that which I have said that in things purely spiritual the Jesuits find scarcely any sufficent matter for mortal sin h Res quantumvis sacras principal ter ob vanam gloriam officere ut Sacramenta omnia ministrare vel recipere sacram celebrare non excedit culpam venialem Sanchez op mor. l. 1. c. 3. n. 1. p. 9. Et si debitus ordo pervertatur ea tamen perversio non tanti est ut adea gravis injuria rebus spiritualibus inseratur ut poena aeterna digna sit Ibid. To perform of vanity saith he the most sacred actions as to administer the Sacraments or to receive them or to celebrate the most Holy Masse for vain glory can be but a venial sin though vain glory be proposed as the principal end He acknowledges that there is disorder in this action but he pretends that it is of small consequence and that the injury that is done to God and things Spiritual and Divine in making them subservient to vain glory is not a thing so considerable as to merit the disfavour of God and that it conserve for a matter to mortal sin and a cause of eternal damnation It is not an easie thing to judge what reason he may have thus to diminish this sin if he acknowledge that there may possibly be great ones in Spiritual matters For indeed it will be a hard thing to find greater then this considered by the light of Faith then to say Masse for vanity as the principal end thereof this is properly to sacrifice to vanity or to the Devil who is the god of vanity the body of Jesus Christ which is horrible onely to think And if the sacrifice of the Masse may be
of the Laws more antient than they and they could not be condemned or defended when they as yet were not at all Thus Caramouel talks of the opinion of Amicus who holds that it is lawfull to kill a Defamer For enquiring e Anne eadem doctrina admiui poterit stando juri Civili Canonico Respondeo Amici doctrinam esse novam legibuâ— vulgat is juniorem atque adco nihil de illa à Pontificibus Caesaribus aut Regibus fuisse dispositum Caram p. 549. Whether this Doctrine may be received without offending against the Laws Civil and Ecclesiastick He answers That the Doctrine of Amicus is Novel and later than the Common Laws and consequently the l'opes Emperors and Kings have not spoken for it nor against it By this rule all new opinions which introduce errours and abuses shall be under shelter from the Laws of the Church which went before them though they be condemned therein They may be taught without punishment and followed with a good conscience 9. f Quidam Episcopus in Belgio interdixit Antonii Dianae resolutiones jussieque ut nemo venderet emeret legeret aut haberet Bibliopolae solliciti interrogabant posserne liber ille interdici Respondi ill is quod si illos condemnant hic jam haberent docti aliquid quod pâ—…tenter tolerare non possent Non enim libri damnari passants qui à doctu leguntur approbantur laudantur Caram p. 89. In hunc scopulum impegit quidam praecipue Antistes Sed quid faciemus aut dicamus homini incapaci doctrinae p. 393. Invidiae ignordanti condonaâ— p. 89. And if a Bishop seeing the evil consequences which they cause in this Diocess would censure and forbid the Books which teach them this Disciple of the Jesuits will make no difficulty to say that it belongs not unto him that if he attempt it he exceeds his power he will give occasion to persons who profess this Science to complain of him as doing a thing they cannot suffer because it is not lawfull for him to condemn Books which are read approved and commended by learned men But if after this the Bishop yield not to their remonstrances and complaints he shall not escape their reproaches and injuries and they will make him pass in their Schools and Books for an ignorant for an envious and stupid person and uncapable of being instructed and who by consequence deserves not to be spoken to nor to have pains taken with him to teach him what he understands not and so that without regarding his censures and his prohibitions they need not cease teaching and publishing the same opinions which he condemns 10. The Pope can have no more power over them in this than the Bishops as the Jesuits have testified many times causing the Books of F. Bauny and F. Rabardeau and others to be reprinted with approbation of their Superiors and of the principal Divines of the Society after they had been censured at Rome And indeed the reason wherefore they pretend that their Books and their Novel opinions cannot be condemned after they have had approbation by their Superiors and other able men of their Society is general and includes the Pope as well as the Bishops For they say g Non enim damnari possune libri qui à dectis leguntur approbantur landantur that it is not at all lawfull to condemn the Books which are read approved and praised by learned men 11. And since the Authority of the Churches Laws do not extend to new opinious which are come after them since neither the Bishops nor the Pope himself may for bid them it is necessarily required that all the Church be assembled in a body to judge of them in a Council And this also the Authors of this Probability pretend saying h Nulla ex praedict is synthesibus aliter potest sua probabilitate privari quam si contraria transeat in arti culum fidei Ibid. p. 89. Finge quemcunque casum possibilem praeter desinitionem Eeclesia That none of their Propositions can cease to be probable if the contrary become not an article of Faith whereupon they defie any man whomsoever to find another means to condemn a probable opinion than by an express definition of the Church For they hold that a single Casuist may introduce and authorize in the Church a probable opinion and that the Pope and all the Bishops cannot exclude it when it is once received and tolerated That the whole Church must speak to silence one single Regent of a Classis must make an Article of Faith to condemn a Probability 12. And yet after all this it is not known whether the Authors of this Science would submit to the definition of a Council For according to their maxims they are not obliged to it since the whole Church together no more than the Bishops and Pope apart can do that which in it self is impossible Now this is one of the maxims of these Doctors i Non enim damnari possunt libri aut opiniones quae à doctis approbantur laudantur That it is not lawfull to condemn opinions any more than Books which are approved and commended by learned persons or to speak yet more clearly k Cum impossibile sit probabilem condemnare senteniam impossibile eam non esse probabilem cui multi Doctores subscribunt Caram p. 393. As it is impossible that an opinion which hath the approbation of many Doctors should not be probable so it is impossible to reject it And this impossibility is universally acknowledged in all Philosophy and this is the first and the greatest of all impossibilities because it arises from the thing it self and from the proper definition of a probable opinion For l Opinion probabilis est quae à magnis multis defenditur Ibid. p. 89. a probable opinion is according as the Doctors of this Science define it that which many persons renowned for their learning do maintain so that if it have the approbation of many Doctors it is also impossible to hinder it from being probable and by consequence lawfull and safe in conscience as it is impossible to cause that they who have approved it should not have approved it or that they who were Doctors and many in number should not be many Doctors m Corgregentur universi Europaei docti indocti magui parvi non tamen poterunt facere aut vere definire viginti non esse viginti aut viros eximios summarum Aâ—…demiarum lumina non esse magnos Ibid. Assemble if you will saith Caramouel all the men of Europe learned and unlearned great and small they cannot make nor truly judge that 20 is not 20 or that excellent persons and the chief of the most famous Vniversities should not be excellent men which all the powers of the World cannot do nor the whole Church together to wit that 20 should not be 20 or Doctors
he saith that 7 Dico 2. ejusmodi appretiatio five existimatio non sumitur ex intentione graduali charitatis vel dilectionis Ibid. This appretiation or estimation proceeds not from any high degree of charity or love That is to say that this sorrow needs not be great in it self nor arise from any great charity but it is said to be great by reason the cause of it is great since it is God or which is the same thing because of the excellency of the Motive thereof propter excellentiam motivi or in more clear terms because God who is the Object and Motive thereof is great though it be in it self very weak and small as is also the Charity from whence it proceeds And when he saith that the sorrow for offending God ought to be appretiatively greater than all other grief which we can have for any temporal loss he intends to say no other thing then that it ought to be greater in the thought and esteem of the sinner in such manner that he judge and acknowledge that God is greater than all other things and that by consequence the loss of God is more considerable than all other losses though indeed this sorrow be much less and more feeble in his heart than that which he hath for other losses and evils Whence he draws this consequence which clears up his thoughts yet more 8 Quare poterit dolere magis de mor te parentis aut filii Ib. n 238. This is the reason why he may have more trouble and grief of mind for the loss of his father or of his son then for having offended God For this hinders not but that he may believe that God deserves to be more loved than a father or a son and by consequence to be more resented when he is lost by sin though in effect he have more affection for his father or for his son and he be more moved by the loss of them than by offending God and yet in this disposition according to this Jesuit he ceases not to be in a good estate and to obtain the pardon of his sins how great and in how great number soever they be provided he have the least displeasure that he hath committed them 1 Quia minima gratia est sufficiens ad remissionem omnium peccatorum ad minimam gratiam sufficiens minima contritio tanquam dispositio Because saith he the least grace is sufficient for the remission of all sins and the least contrition is a sufficient disposition for the least grace He demands also concerning the sorrow which is necessary to obtain pardon of sin in the Sacrament of Penance 2 Quaero an hic dolor debeat esse verus realis Respondeo probabile esse dolorem existimatum sufficere Tr. 7. de Confess cap. 6. n. 150. Whether this sorrow ought to be true and real or it be sufficient we are perswaded that it is though it be not at all His Answer is That it is probable that it is sufficient that we believe it to be such That is to say that to obtain pardon of God in Penance it is not necessary to have a true sorrow for offending him so that we believe we have this sorrow Escobar also demands in the same matter 3 Num necessarius sit dolor supernaturalis Sufficit naturalis qui tamen supernaturalis existimetur Escobar tr 7. exam 4. n. 39. p. 805. If it be needful that sorrow be supernatural And he answers That it suffices to be natural so we believe it to be supernatural As if a Creditor were obliged to discharge his Debtor when he had given him Brass money for Gold provided he imagined that he gave him good Gold He speaks yet more clearly upon this Point a little after saying 4 Si quis doleat de peccato propterea quod Deus in poenam illius malum temporale immisit sufficit si autem doleat sine ullo respectu ad Deum non sufficit Ibid. c. 7. n. 91. p. 813. That if a man be touched with remorse for his sin because God to punish him for it hath brouâ—ht on him some temporal evil this remorse is sufficient but if it have no respect unto God it is not sufficient It is clear that this grief is altogether natural and common to good and bad or rather proper unto them that love the world who are so much more touched with regret and displeasure when God takes from them their temporal goods as they love them more whereas good men have little or no resentment thereof because they love them not if their vertue be solid as appears by the Example of Job and many others So that this grief comes properly from the love of the world and the adherence we have to the goods of this world and yet according to the opinion of Hurtado the Jesuit reported by Escobar it is sufficient to blot out sins though it be it self a disorder and a sin But if any object unto him what Amicus doth to himself 5 Qui peccatum detestatur propter poenam plus actu detestatur poenam quam culpam cum poena sit ratio detestandi culpam Amicus tom 8. disp 3. sect 1. n. 5. That he who detesteth sin because of punishment doth indeed detest the punishment more than the sin the punishment being the motive and reason that incites him to detest the sin which is to love himself more than God and to prefer his own interest before the honour of God since he is touched more by the loss which he makes or the temporal punishment that he suffers than the sin which displeaseth and dishonoreth God He will answer without doubt as the same Amicus 6 Nego hujusmodi actum non esse honestum quia non te nemur semper actu plus detestari culpam quam poenam Ibid. That he cannot agree that this act is not good and honest and he will serve himself of this reason That we are not always obliged to detest actually the fault more than the punishment From whence he will conclude as he hath done already 7 Si quis doleat de peccato propterea quod Deus in poenam illius malum temporale immisit sufficit That if a man be touched with remorse for his sin because God to punish him for it hath brought on him some temporal evil this remorse suffices to blot out his sin if it be true as the same Amicus pretends that we are not always obliged to do otherwise and this sorrow be good honest and regular This being so we must say that the world is at this day filled with persons of great vertue and true Penitents since amongst so frequent and common miseries there are hardly any that are not afflicted with loss of their goods their happiness and their repose and who will not easily confess that their sins are the cause So that according to the Rule of these
from God or else he must deal with his Penitent at adventure as a Physitian that being not at leisure to confider his sick Patient dispatches him in haste and appoints him the first thing that comes in his mind without having taken so much pains as to inform himself of the particularities of his sickness because he hath many other Patients to visit who will not suffer him to stay with this and look to him more nearly and in the mean time he would perswade him that he is cured and that he may return to his ordinary employments Bauny proposes a second case like to the former He demands What is fit to be said to them who in their youth have done many actions vicious in their own nature which notwithstanding they believed not to be such He answers That they are not obliged to say one word of them when they apprehend and know their nature and conditions and much less to repeat their past Confessions He seems to have a design to oppose himself to the word of the Prophet who beseeches God not to remember the sins of his youth and of his ignorance acknowledging them to be true sins and that he ought to ask pardon for them of God though he had committed them by ignorance and this Jesuit on the contrary will that they be not confest nor pardon asked for them from God as if they were innocent actions Dicastillus proposes one case very like this 2 Qui confessus fuit peccatum quod nec ipse nec Confessarius sciebant esse mortale vel certe de eo dubitabant Postea-novit esse mortale non tenetur iterum confiteri quia adsunt omnia necessaria ad substantiam Sacramenti ad cujus valorem non requiritur quod Confessarius manifestè noverit peccatum esse mortale Dicastillus n. 353. 354. d. 12. d. 10. tr 8. de Poenit. When a Penitent in Confession declares one of his sins being mortal as venial through ignorance and the Confessor by like ignorance believes it to be such whether after the certain knowledge of this sin he be obliged to confess it anew He resolves this case without fear and saith 1 Ex quo fit ut post mediocrem diligentiam non teneatur quis licet fortasse conjiciat fore ut tandem per prolixissimam aliquod aliud peccatum occurrat Dicast n. 869. d. 10. d. 9. tr 8. de Paenit That he is not obliged because it is not necessary that the Confessor know the quality of the sin whether it be mortal or venial Ignorance amongst Jesuits is a most advantagious thing If you know not that an action is not a sin though in process of time you do learn to know it you are not at all obliged to confess your self of it and knowing that it is a sin you know not of what nature it is mortal or venial you are in no wise obliged to declare it to a Priest It is in favour of this ignorance so advantagious and so profitable 2 Quod aâ—tem non teneatur quis scribere etiamsi lubricam habeat memoriam jam alibi diximus praesertim d. 7. num 244. Ibid. That he frees Penitents from examining their consciences at the least so exactly although it may well fall out saith he that by examining your self more exactly you may discover some new sins you are not thereunto obliged for all that It were even to be wisht for Penitents that they had bad memories that they might before God be discharged of their sins without the Sacrament of Confession If you say to this Jesuit that the Penitent may relieve his memory by setting down his sins in writing he will answer you that he is not obliged thereunto If you add that having of en cause to distrust his memory he may go frequently to Confession he will give you the same answer and so it may oftentimes come to pass that a Penitent of this sort covered with sins may cast himself at the feet of a Priest as an innocent without accusing himself of any crime though he have indeed a Soul altogether polluted there with because he hath been so happy as to have a wretched memory Filliutius takes the thing yet higher and proposes the question more generally He asks 3 An vero qui lubricam habet memoriam teneatur peccata scribere verius puto non teneri ..... Non obligatur quis ad utendum medlis quae non sunt ordinaria communia unde inferunt quod etiamsi sit mortale periculum oblivionis sicut non tenetur statim confiteri ne memoria excidant peccata ita nec illa scribere Idem n. 244. d. 14. d. 6. tr 8. de Paenit Whether when ignorance is not absolutely voluntary though it be criminal the Confession continue to be valid though it be out of form Hâ—s answer is That it is probable And he adds that if the omission come only from this that we are not prepared nor examined before we present our selves to Confession it is not necessary to repeat what we have omitted and the Confession is valid notwithstanding It is true that he saith after that the contrary opinion iâ— the safer but he forbears not for all that to prop up this as much as he can by authorities reasons that he may make it more probable and to give more liberty and more repose to the consciences of those that will follow him He makes use of two considerable reasons The first is That otherwise many Confessions must be refused That is to say that we are not to trouble our selves to remedy a mischief because it is too great and that if it were not so universal it were good to oppose it by obliging those who had forgot their sins to confess them the first time but that this is not now necessary though the forgetfulness or ignorance which is the cause of this omission of sins and which causeth them to commit this sin be malicious and criminal licet ignorantia sit culpabilis mortaliter In regard that this abuse is become so common that the greater part of those who confess themselves doing it without great resentment and without much preparation forget frequently one part of their sins and so there would be too much trouble to the Confessors and Penitents to repeat their Confessions so ill made This is that which he saith clearly in his second reason with which he concludes in these terms Wherefore if we were to follow the contrary opinion in practice which obliges to repeat an imperfect Confession this would make the burden of Confession too heavy 2. They teach that it is not always necessary to declare the circumstances which change the kind of the sin Dieastillus brings for Example of this Doctrine a calumny 4 Utrum qui laesit alterum in fama graviter injustè dicendo falsum aliquid quod illius famam denigraret teneatur circumstantiam mendacii explicare
spirit and in his heart though it were easie for him to do it if he would they content themselves if he say Amavi Mariam toto mense toto anno I have loved Mary a whole month a whole year But if he also startle at Penance they will give him so slight an one that he cannot refuse it they will even leave him to his choice if it be needful and they will remit him to do his Penance in the other world After this they must wholly renounce all devotion who will not go to confess themselves to the Jesuits and it seems that he who refuses can have no other pretence then to say that he hath no devotion and he may adde that he cannot have any for Confession as the Jesuits represent it and that he cannot believe that he confesses himself as he ought if he confess as they say he may But after all this though one will not be devout if he be a Catholick he must at least confess himself at Easter that thereupon he may communicate the Command of the Church is express and to fail herein were to decry and declare himself to be a man of no Religion The Jesuits have therefore provided for this also they have made the observation of this Precept so easie that the most debauched and most impious may discharge this duty according to them without being obliged not only to change their lives but to interrupt the course of their debauches for the time only while they go to Church and return after they have presented themselves to a Priest to whom they may tell only what they please of their sins and do also what they list of all that he saith to them For it is a common opinion amongst these Doctors that we may satisfie the Command which ordains that we should at least confess our selves once a year by any manner of Confession whatsoever it be provided that we can say that it is a Confession though it be a Sacriledge They say the same thing of the Communion and hold that we may satisfie the Command of the Church in communicating unworthily and receiving the Body of Jesus Christ after we have confessed in the manner now related or without any Confession at all though we believe we are in mortal sin and over-run with crimes But because I shall handle these two Points in their proper place expounding the Commandments of the Church according to the Maxims of the Jesuits I will not speak thereof here at all and I will rest satisfied only in representing some of the dispositions with which they hold that we may communicate worthily and receive the fruit of the Communion They grant indeed that our conscience must not be charged with any crime but they hardly require any thing farther It is from this Principle that Filliutius speaking of dispositions for this Sacrament saith at first that we ought to be in a state of Grace and free from mortal sin but in the sequel he declares that there needs no other preparation 1 Non requititur autem necessaâ—iò pein ò actualis devoâ—io First saith he it is not necessary to have actual devotion Whence he draws this consequence 2 Ex quo etiam colligitur voluntariè distrctum secluso co temptu quia culpa non est mortalis non ponere oblcem Filliut tom 1. mor. qq tr 4. c. 6. n. 163.164 pag. 87. That he who is voluntarily distracted in the Sacrament provided be contemns it not puts no obstacle to the effect of the Communion because he sins not mortally Supposing there is nothing but mortal sin alone which makes a man indisposed for the Communion and to receive the effect of the Eucharist He adds a little after 3 Non requititur carentia peccati venialis Ibid. That it is not also necessary to be without venial sin whatsoever it may be even voluntary wherewith one actually and deliberately imploys himself at the holy Table and when even after he hath received the Body of Jesus Christ and holds it yet in his mouth instead of adoring it he dishonours and offends him expresly by some venial sin whereunto he casts himself at that very season this shall not be incompatible with the Communion and shall not give any stop to its effect according to this Jesuit 4 Dâ—actusli pâ—ccato ve nali quod comiâ—…tur ipsam communionem etiam probatur non ponere ob cem quia tale peccatum non facit indigâ—un Ibid. n. 165. As to actual sin saith he which is committed in the very Communion it self it hinders not at all from receiving the Grace of the Communion because this sin makes not the person unworthy of the participation of the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ because according to him there is nothing but mortal sin that is capable of causing this unworthiness He may say by the same reason that he who should be so rude as of meer humour to jostle the King and lose all the respect he owes him whilst he fits with him at his Table should not thereby render himself by this insolence unworthy of the honour which he had done him or that a Child who was resolved to do his Father all the displeasure he could and should actually do it Parricide only excepted should not be so unworthy but that he might receive him to his Table and give him the utmost testimonies of paternal affection For this is in effect that which he maintains when he declares that there is nothing but mortal sin which renders a man indisposed for the Communion and that no venial sin though voluntary nor even that which is purposely committed whilst the Body of Jesus Christ is actually received can render him who commits it unworthy of the Communion nor of the fruit of the Grace which it confers he thinks also that be hath found a good reason to support his opinion when he saith 5 Alioquin talis peccaret mortaliteâ— quia qui indigne suscipit judicium sibi manducat b.bit. Ibid. That otherwise he who communicates in this disposition sins mortally because he who receives unworthily the Body and Blood of Jesus Christ eats and drinks his own damnation As if we could not communicate unworthily without sinning mortally This is on one side too rigorous to think that all indispositions in the Communion should be mortal and on the other side too large to believe that all sorts of venial sins even voluntary and affected should not be indispositions to this Sacrament All that which renders the stomach incapable of receiving food or of digesting it is not mortal and yet though the food received in this estate kills not the person yet it ceases not to weaken him and to cause in him those diseases which sometimes bring him to his end But foreseeing that it might be justly objected unto him that his opinion is universally condemned by the Holy Fathers and Councils there where they represent the great
to use the Pope in a base manner and unbecoming his Holiness and Greatness to will that he should pay his debts and acknowledge the Services done him at the charge of the Church and to the prejudice of the obedience which all the Faithful owe unto its Commands That which Escobar saith is no less extravagant 1 Dormire quis nequit nisi sumpâ—a coeâ—… teneturne jejunare Minime That no person who cannot sleep when he hath not supped is obliged to fast And he adds that which is more strange 2 Si sâ—fficit mane câ—liatiunculam sumere vespere coenare teneturne Non tenetur qula nemo tenetur pervertere ordinem refectionumâ— Escobar tract 1. exam 13. num 67. pag. 212. That if this person by making his Collation in the morning and reserving his supper till night could fast he would not be obliged thereunto because no person is obliged to pervert the order of his repast If he had been well informed of the order of Fasting and the manner wherein it was instituted in the Church he would have known that there was no order of repast in Fasting because the order of Fasting is that we take but one refection and that at supper as Bellarmin himself and many others acknowledge and so they that dine on Fast-days do pervert the order of Fasting rather than they who make their Collation in the morning and sup at night if the Church of its usual kindness did not tolerate dinners on these days and slight Collations at night 3 Potesâ—ne aliquis alio se conâ—eâ—re ut jâ—juâ—ium vitet Fagundus pesse respondet Ibid. num 64. p. 212. This same Jesuit gives us also another Expedient to exempt us from Fasting without necessity and dispensation which is to depart from the place where the Fast is and to go to another place where it is not observed And if any think that this is to deceive our selves whilst we think to deceive the Church Filliutius as we have already observed answers in a like case 4 Proprie loquendo non est ulla fraus si quis jure suo utatur potius est fugere obligationem praecepti Filliutius mor. qq tom 2. cap. 7. n. 116. pag. 261. That this is not to deceive the Church nor to elude its Command but only to avoid the obligation of the Commandment in pursuance of the right which every man hath to do it when he can that is to say that if the Church hath a right to command a Fast or Mass we have also a right to avoid them and to do all we can that we may not be obliged to obey it and after this we shall not cease in the Judgment of the Jesuits to be faithful and obedient Children of the Church because we neither offend nor deceive in making use of this right Non est ulla fraus si quis utatur jure suo The last question which I shall report here concerning the dispensing with Fasts and the use of meats on Fasting-days is Escobars also 5 Quid de pueris Ante septennium comedere carnes poslunt Ibid. num 10. p. 201. Darine possunt carnes pueris ante septennium si sunt deli capaces Possunt quia accidentale est quod in aliquo usus rationis acceleretur Ibid. n. 52. pag. 210. Quid de Paganis Etiam quia non tenentur legibus Christisnorum Quid de amentibus Cum pueris ante septennium computandi Ibid. n. 52. p. 210. He demands if we may on Fast-days give flesh to children under seven years old To which he answers that they may eat it before they attain that age He demands a little after whether in case they have the use of reason before that age we may make them cat flesh And his answer is that we may because it is by accident that the use of reason in any person prevents that age It behoves them therefore who would give flesh to these children not to seem to know that they have the use of reason and that they may eat with a safer conscience to present it to them without acquainting them that the Church forbids them to eat it That we may hold them in this ignorance and conceal from them their fault they must be hindered from learning the Commandments of the Church and must not be brought to Church where they are published every Lords-day He saith the same thing of Pagans and those that have lost their Wits consenting that we may make them eat flesh on Fast-days as well as children because the one sort have no use of reason and the other are not subject to the Commands of the Church By this same reason we may suffer Fools and Infants to blaspheme and tolerate them in all sorts of crimes because having no reason they sin not in committing them We may make them also to violate all the Laws of the Church who are Infidels because they acknowledge not the Church and are not subject unto it but rather are its declared enemies As if a Father who had forbid something to be done in his house under grievous penalties could take it well for his Son to cause it to be done by a stranger or a fool not daring to do it himself In the mean time they would have the Church to be well satisfied with a Christian who out of a Frolick causes its Laws to be violated in his house by his houshold-servants under pretence that they are Children Fools or Insidels They must be Fools or Infants that can believe so great a Paradox and worse than an Infidel to have so little care of their Houshold and to proceed to so gross and visible a contempt of the Church and Religion But may we not at least condemn those who induce others to violate the Fast Tambourin who hath had a care to secure Victuallers in this point saith 1 Quando probabiliter putantur accedentes non violatu ri jejunium possunt caupones vendentes cibos iis ministrare venders atque Invitare Std quid si sit dubium Adhuc poterunt quia nisi certo constet contrarium nemo est praesumendus malus At quando probabiliter vel certo sciunt violaturos concestu est difficilius Concedimus tamen satis probabiliter ...... quia ministratio illa imo ultronea invitatio non fit à caupone vel venditore directe alliciendo ad non jejunandum atque adeo ad peccandum sed ad lucrum expiscandum Tambur lib. 4. decal cap. 5. sect 6. num 4. 7. That when they probably believe that those who come to their houses break not their Fast it is evident that an Inn-keeper or Cook may give and sell them victuals And though they doubt whether or no they violate the Fast they yet may do it because we ought not presume that a man is wicked unless we know it And by consequence we must not presume that he will break his Fast But if
their own governance And so 3 Arma militiae nostrae non carnalia sunt sed potentia Deo ad destructionem munitionum consilia destruentes c. in captivitatem redigentes omnem intellectum in obsequium Christi 2 Cor. 10. v. 4. 5. S. Paul did amiss to pretend that he had received a power altogether divine to bring all Spirits into subjection unto Jesus Christ and to make them Captives to his light and guidance All this is not conformable to the Judgment of Seneca nor by consequence to that of Layman who exempts the Soul from the Jurisdiction of the Church and allows it only over bodies for the outward conduct of the Faithful and to injoyn them material and corporeal actions and vertues and to forbid them sins only of the same sort i. e. external and gross ones Neither will he leave it a power to command all these visible and carnal vertues nor to forbid all sensual and material vices how enormous soever they may be For in the same Chapter where he reduces the Power of the Church which he will have to be only humane to command only external vertues he speaks thus 4 Qui aliquas non omnes actiones virtutum humana lege imperari posse Quaedam enim sunt nimis arduae ac difficiles ut in consilio esse debeant non in praecepto v. c. Evangelica paupertas castitas c. Layman ibid. c. 4. n. 1. p. 48. I have said that humane Laws may command some vertuous actions but not all because there are some that are so high and difficult that they ought indeed be counselled but not commanded as Gospel poverty and Chastity He saith moreover and declares 5 Sed neque omnia peccata criam externa ab humano Magistratu prohiberl possunt sed multa permitti debent ut graviora evitentur Ibid. That a publick Magistrate cannot forbid all sorts of vices and sins but that he ought to tolerate many though grievous ones to avoid greater And the same thing ought to be said of the Church according to him and his Companions since they hold that its Power and Laws are altogether humane as those of the Secular Magistrates And to give us to know what the crimes are which a Secular Magistrate or a Prelate of the Church may forbid and what he may tolerate he speaks thus in general terms and he establisheth this Rule which is as it were a reason and a proof of what he had said 1 Lex humana ponitur multitudini sive communitati in qua major pars est hominum in virtute non perfectorum Quare ferme nonni si gravia peccata legibus prohibiti solent à quibus moraliter possibile est maâ— jorem partem multitudinis abstinere Humane Law is made for the many and for all those who live in a Society of whom the greatest part are such as are imperfect in vertue Whence he draws this consequence Wherefore Laws are not wont to forbid other than the most enormous sins from which speaking morally the greater part of the Commonalty may abstain So that when people are grown very corrupt we must release the more the rigour of the Church as well as Civil Laws and forbid no sins but such as are not common and ordinary And because they are all such in a manner at this day there being hardly any that is not done without fear of punishment against God and the Gospel by the greatest part of the world who give themselves up to them and pamper themselves in them with quiet of conscience by the favour of the Doctrine of Probability which authorizes them all in a manner it will follow that the Church can hardly forbid any by its Laws and that it will be obliged to tolerate them all And so we must speak no more of reformation of Manners in Church-assemblies and Councils And though in these Propositions which we now observed Layman expresses not formally the Ecclesiastick Power yet he includes it in the general of humane Power and Law pretending as he doth that the Power and the Laws of the Church are humane as well as the Laws of the Secular Magistrate as we have made appear already Amicus testifies this also where he faith 2 Eâ— potestas concessa est Ecclesiae quae accommodate est humano regimini Amicus tom 8. dub 17. sect 2. num 12. pag. 275. That the power which God hath given unto the Church is such as was needful unto an humane conduct He declares not only that the power of the Church is humane but the conduct and government of it also And it is from this Principle that he draws the Proposition whereof we speak in this Chapter that the Church cannot command inward actions 3 Non possunt esse intra sphaeram humanae gubernationis Ibid. Because as he speaks there they pass the bounds of humane Government and cognizance Whence he infers that whatsoever Laws the Church may make 4 Nam totum id quod pâ—aeciperet esset actus externus conducens ad externum regimen gubernationem Ecclesiasticam Ibid. num 15. pag. 275. all that it ordains must be of external acts proportionable to the Ecclesiastical Government and which may help in the outward conduct of those who are under its charge And what he saith generally of the Pastors of the Church that their conduct is but humane and external he saith particularly of the Pope and proves it by reason 5 Cum enim Deus suam Ecclesiam regat per homines eam tantum potestatem suo Vicarlo contulisse credendum est quae necessaria est sufficit ad humanum regimen Ibid. num 14. As God saith he conducts his Church by men as his Instruments so we must not believe that he hath given unto his Vicar other power than what is necessary and sufficient for an humane Government He acknowledges not in Jesus Christ himself any other than an humane and outward conduct whether he believes he could or would not take up any other Government in the Church 6 Putandum est Christum praecepta dedisse hominibus more humano quo solent terrestres Principts suls subditis praecepta dare quae non obligant nisi ad id quod exprimunt Ibid. sect 3. num 31. pag. 277. We must believe saith he that when Jesus Christ gave these precepts unto men he did it in an humane manner and as the Princes of the Earth are wont to make their Ordinances and Laws for their Subjects which oblige them to no other thing than what they contain and express precisely After this the Bishops and the Pope himself have not as it may seem any cause to complain of the Jesuits since they treat them no worse than Jesus Christ whom they think not that they have offended in saying that he governs the Church and Faithful as well as they in an humane manner as the Princes of the Earth
Jesuits the most covetous most ambitious and most voluptuous will be the greatest Penitents because they are more touched with regret than others for the loss of their goods and for having deserved it by their sins Escobar might well have seen these consequences from his and his Master Hurtado's opinion since they are so evident but they have not startled him for without standing upon them at all he insists only upon one Rule of Suarez whom he affirms to be of the contrary opinion and to reject his 1 Quia aliàs sequeretur peccatotem posse se disponere ad Sacramentum illum affectum ex solis naturae viribus Ibid. Because it would follow thence that the sinner might dispose himself to receive the Sacrament and the benefit of the Sacrament by the powers of nature only But he confesses he makes no great account of this reason For he answers only in saying with Hurtado 2 Si autem doleat sine ullo respectu ad Deum non sufficit Ibid. That if the sinner grieve for his sin without any regard of God it is not sufficient That is to say provided the sinner have some thought of God and regard him in some manner as the Author of his punishment which he is apprehensive of that grief he hath for offending him will thereupon immediately become supernatural and a sufficient disposition to blot out his sin But if this be true not only persons that are most addicted to the world but also Devils and damned Spirits will always be in a disposition to be converted For in their greatest pains as they are troubled to endure them so are they also for having offended God not because their sin is displeasing unto God but because it is the cause of their torments So that knowing that it is God who torments them but that it is sin only that makes way for him to torment them they hate not sin otherwise then as they hate God and they have the same aversion for them both as being the intire and total cause of their punishment which is the principal motive of their grief Such is the displeasure of those of whom Escobar speaks who are troubled that they have offended God because of the punishments he sends them for their sins and yet he pretends that this displeasure is sufficient to justifie a sinner in the Sacrament of Penance Filliutius also demands particularly 3 Quaero an dolor hic verus debeat esse supernaturalis an vero sufficiat naturalis ad valorem Sacramenti Filliut mor. qq t. 1. tr 7. c. 6. n. 153. p. 185. If this true sorrow ought also to be supernatural or whether indeed it be enough that it be natural that the Sacrament may be effectual He relates after his use two contrary opinions of which the one saith that this sorrow ought of necessity to be supernatural and the other maintains that it suffices that it be natural He concludes for the latter saying 4 Dico 2. probabiliorem videri secundam sententiam Ibid. n. 154. p. 185. Quia mihi non constat de obligatione evidenter non sunt homines obligandi ad iterandas confessiones Ibid. That it appears to him more probable One of his reasons is that if it were necessary to have supernatural sorrow for the obtaining pardon of sin it would so fall out that many confessions at this day would be void for want of this sorrow and which for that cause ought to be repeated which would be troublesom to Confessors and the Penitents are not to be obliged hereunto if the obligation be not indubitable and evident But though a person were assured that his grief is purely natural yet he holds that the Sacrament would not cease to be valid though it were useless and ineffectual to him 5 Non enim pertingit ad eum gradum quem Christus instituit ut necessariam dispositionem ad fructum ex Tridentino Est tamen sufficiens ad valorem Sacramenti quia Christus noluit obligare ut tam rigide teneremur ad iterationem quando adsunt necessaria essentialia judicio adsunt autem omnia cum est integer verus dolor Ibid. n. 154. p. 186. For this grief saith he is not that which Jesus Christ hath instituted as a necessary disposition to receive the fruit of the Sacrament according to the Council of Trent though it be sufficient for the essence of the Sacrament Because Jesus Christ would not so rigorously oblige us to reiterate the Confession when that which is essential unto the judgment which the Priest is obliged to exercise may be found therein as it is found in effect when the Confession is entire and the sorrow true though it be only natural So the Sacrament of Penance shall not be only altogether humane being composed of parts all natural as are confession and sorrow but we may also fulfil the Command which Jesus Christ hath given us to receive the Sacrament of Penance by actions meerly humane yea and unprofitable since they make the Sacrament without effect and disordered since they prophane it for it is certain that he who knows his sorrow for his sins is only natural as this Jesuit supposes and who confesseth them by a motion meerly humane and natural transgresses the institution of Jesus Christ as the same Jesuit himself acknowledges and sins in prophaning the Sacrament and rendring it unprofitable So that he shall be acquitted of the obligation of receiving the Sacrament by a voluntary impenitence and by the prophanation of the Sacrament of Penance And by consequence the Commandments of Jesus Christ as well as of the Church may be accomplished by Sacriledges according to the Jesuits which they boldly affirm as we shall see more at large in its place but it is not for all that less horrible and incredible After he hath reduced sorrow for sin to an imaginary or meer natural being he demands 1 An requiritur ut dolor sit de omnibus peccatis confessis Ibid. n. 156. Respondeo 1. requiri ut sit de omnibus Whether it be necessary that this sorrow be extended to all the sins that are confessed He answers presently according to the common opinion that grief as well as confession ought to be extended to all sins But he adds to temper this Answer that if the Penitent be sorrowful only for some part of his sins and do this purposely or by an ignorance that is criminal and entirely unexcusable and that knowing his own indisposition he forbears not to persist therein voluntarily the confession will be null 2 Si verò ignorantia vel inadvertentia sit inculpabilis vel culpabilis venialiter tantum aut etiam mortaliter sed communi modo erit valida Ibid. n. 157. But if he be not guilty of this ignorance or inadvertence or that he be not fallen into it but by some venial fault or even mortal but common and ordinary the confession shall be