promise alone or a compact be obliged in conscience he answers he is bound under pain of mortal sin if it be of important matters signifying that in other matters it is no mortal sin to break promises or agreements And Navar expresses their common opinion when he tells us (a) Nec violatio promissae rei exiguae erit mortalis quamvis venialis sit c. 18. n. 7. Soto Canus Victoria Sylvester in Lopez pars 2. c. 30. that the violation of a promise in a small matter is not mortal though it be Venial But why should perfidiousnness be a crime in great things and not in lesser since it is no less perfidiousness in one than the other and faith and truth is equally violated in both The reason they give is because in great matters there is injustice (b) Quando non per se est persidus non iucurret mortale nisi per accidens hoc est propter notabile nocumentum sen â—eandalam Caietan v. perfidia great wrong is done and so by acccident perfidiousness becomes criminal from whence it follows that perfidiousness how great soever without the addition of injustice is no crime a man may be as treacherous and faithless as he will if he be not withall unjust too there 's no danger And so the world must believe that they would oblige men to be just though not to truth or faithfulness as if those who may by their rules without scruple be false and faithless will make any conscience or find any more reason to be just and righteous However they teach (c) A mortali excusantur qui parva pollicentur non implent etiamsi juramento aut vâ—to id ipsum confirmassent secundum eos quos sequimur viz. Antonin Sylvest Soto Navar. c. 18. n. 7. c. 12. n. 10. that they who promise but small things and perform not are excused from mortal sin though they confirm the promise with an Oath or a Vow Whether the thing promised be little or great if it be an internal promise though an Oath be added not to revoke it yet it obliges not but may be revoked without mortal sin Panormitan Jason Rebellus alii cum Bonacin de contract disp 3. q. 12. punct 2. n. 1. 3. yea if it be made in the form of a Vow yet when it is of a thing indifferent or less good as if a man inwardly promise to marry such a woman and promise it to God too it does not oblige him Idem ibid. n. 2. And how can it be expected they should be faithful as to any ingagement to man who think they are not bound to observe truth or faith with God how much soever concern'd either as a witness in Oaths or as a party in Vows Well but when the matter is of great importance may they not then break promises bargains or compact may not perfidiousness which themselves account pernicious pass commonly for an innocent Venial yes they have ways enough ready to make this currant at so easie a rate The worst perfidiousness in the world may be excused from mortal guilt according to Cajetan (d) Excusatur à mortali ex parte formae hoc est quia non per se seu ex intentione peccatum illud fit sed ex oblivione aut ignorantia fucti aut ex fiducia quam accipit de eo cui promisit aut ex causa quae sibi videtur rationabilis Sum. v. perfidia through ignorance of the fact or through forgetfulness if one forget to be honest he may be innocently a knave or out of confidence in him to whom he is ingaged the good nature of one party concern'd may be a warrant to the other to break faith with him or for any cause which he thinks reasonable He need have said no more than this any one may violate all truth and faith not only when there is some reasonable cause but when there there is any that seems but so to him when any thing will seem so to him who is disposed to play the knave This is enough to Licence a world of perfidiousness but this is not all Sylvester after others tells us a (e) Est Theologorum doctrina quod obligatur si habuit animum se obligandi seeâ—s si habuit animum essendi liber usque ad redditionem vel si habuit animam fingâ—…di quia licet peccet non obligatur tamen nisi subesset causa de se ex praecepto obligans puta si promissa est patri vestis frigoribus alget Ibid. n. 4. Alias si non habuit animum obligandi non tenetur subpoena mortalis peccati ad pactum nudum servandam nisi subesset causa quae ad hoc obligaret de necessitate precepti puta promisi patri meo vestem qui moritur ex frigore quoniam tenetur quamvis non habuerit animum obligendi se Angel sum v. pactum n. 4. man is not obliged to perform promise or compact if he had not a mind to oblige himself thereby yea or if he had a mind to dissemble to feign that he is ingaged when he did not mean it for saies he though he offend yet he is not obliged unless there was a cause from some command which of it self would oblige him as for Example if he had promised Cloths to his Father and he is now starving for cold in such a case would ye think it one may be bound to keep his promise to wit when he would have been a monster if he had not done the thing though he had never promised it He tells us else-where (f) Utrum autem quis obligatur ex pollicitatione dico quod sic quando pollicetur civitati universitati clero Ecclesiae vel pauperibus alicujus loci ex causa puta ad honorem Dei hujusmodi secus si fiat praedictis sine causa vel aliis à praedictis etiam cum causa quia non obligatur nisi praetextu promissionis aliquid caeperit Ibid v. pollicitatio Ità eisdem verbis Angelus sum v pollicitatio that a promise does oblige when it is made to a City or an Vniversity the Clergy the Church or the poor of a certain place in case it be for some cause to wit for the honour of God or the like but if there be no cause it does not bind though it be made to those foremenrioned and it does not bind when it is made to any other besides tbose though there be cause for it Others maintain (g) In Sylvest ibid. v. pactum n. 4. promissio sive pactum obligat in conscientia hoc antem sum Aug. Rosell est limitatio Coll. quem sequitur Panor quando exprimitur causa promittendi that a promise or compact does not oblige in conscience to performance if the cause why it is made be not expressed so Panormitan Angelus and Rosella with others so that if a man forbear but to mention the
to count it so they conclude presently upon that account it is not mortal what-ever appears not to be a grand enormity whether it be against God others or our selves must be venial according to that of Richard de Sancto Victore (r) Mortale non potest a quoquam committi sine grandi corruptione sui aut contemptu Dei aut gravi laesione proximi reliquaomnia esse venialia vid. St. Clar. Probl. 14. p. 8â— Mortal sin cannot be committed by any but by a grand corrupting of himself or contempt of God or grievous mischief of others all the rest are Venial Whatever is not in their apprehension grand and grievous is next to nothing Yea one Member of the three is in a manner wholly shrivell'd away into Venials (s) Quando sunt contra bonum proprium tantum sunt magna ex parte venialia A man can scarce do any thing against himself which will be big enough to make a mortal sin of Indeed it may seem no more than requisite to make it no crime for a man to damn himself when they animate him to venture on so many damnable things as if they were nothing Thus they serve whatever the great God hath forbidden which they have the confidence to count small but if they cannot choose but think it great they have other expedients to level it according to the exigence of mens Lusts and diminish it into a Venial To make it more they require so very much that a Sinner may make shift enough to be without some of it and so scape the mortalness as they will have him dream though he practise the wickedness That any sin may be mortal there must be judicium integrum (t) Ad constituendum peccatum mortale judicium integrum requiritur Navar. cap. 16. n. 8. Ad constituendum peccatum mortale integrum judicium requiri debet cap. 1. de delict puer Graff l. 1. c. 14. n. 4. requiritur plena advertentia non sufficit semiplena qualis in semiebrijs semidormientibus eis qui alio distrabuntur ut Cajetan Navar alij communiter cum Bonacin de Matr. q. 4. punct 7. n. 6. p. 313. an intire judgment not distracted not weakened not disturbed as they prove out of their Canon Law Also there must be (u) Vid. St. Clar. Probl. 14. p. 79. Tol. l. 4. c. 12. Cajetan Sum. v. delect mores p. 112. perfect deliberation 't is venial how grievous soever otherwise where there is not perfect deliberation If by any means deliberation not only in it self but in its perfection be either prevented and the thing be done before the mind take due cognizance of it or hindered while it is under debate it cannot be mortal And that deliberation may be perfect there must be a (x) Veniale ex imperfectione operis licet in re gravi ubi deest perfecta deliberatio vel presentatio sufficiens malitiae in objecto c. St. Clar. ibid. sufficient presenting of the evil in its object and its circumstances If the mind only consider the advantage or pleasure and not the sinfulness and danger 't is but a semi-deliberation and not full enough to make a sin mortal Besides it will require (y) Per sufficientem deliberationem intelligit Bonaventura tempus sufficiens ad deliberandum postquam ratio advertit Sylvest v. Consens n. 1. Intelligitur si advertentia sit satis deliberata Nam si est motus surreptitius adeo ut sit subita deliberatio non autem plena poterit esse veniale perjurium scilicet si tempus non suppetebat ad plene deliberandum Soto de Just lib. 8. q. 2. ar 3. p. 271. sufficiens advertentia deliberatio non habetur sine discursu discursus autem in tempore sit Suar. de Vot l. 1. c. 9. time to perfect it and here they may favour the Sinner as much as they please by determining what time is sufficient for humane frailty but if he be in hast and do not stay this time because he is so forward to sin he will but sin Venially Finally there must be full consent of will If the inferiour and sensual part take never so much complacency in a wicked thing yet so long as the Superiour takes no notice of it there 's no harm (z) Contingit igitur delectari ad apprehensionem delectabilis ante adversionem delectationis hoc est sensualitatis absque dubio est veniale peccatum Bonaventura 2. dist 24. n. 74. 't is certainly no more than a Venial Or if the superiour part takes cognizance of it and be some way inclined to the wickedness yet that may not make it criminal for every (a) Vid. Bonavent ibid. n. 64. inclination is not sufficient for this purpose but full consent of will such as is perfectly deliberate neither is a tacit and constructive consent sufficient (b) Negligentia repellendi complacentiam cum displicentia rationis de ea secundum Bonaventur est consensus interpretativus quod non est mortale peccatum secundum multos magistros Sylv. v. Consensus n. 1. Necessaria est positiva complacentia non sufficit consensus interpretativus Cajetan alii in Bonacin ibid. n. 8. Vid. Jo. Sanc. disp 21. n. 3. ibi Adrian Cajetan Armilla Navar. D. Thom. D. Bonavent 30. alij A neglect to repell or suppress the delight in sin with some reluctancy of reason is with Bonaventure constructive consent which in the opinion of many Doctors is no mortal sin Now if there be not a concurrence of all these the horridest crime that can be perpetrated will be a Venial If a man should Blaspheme God or Curse Christ or renounce the Faith or Murder his own Father or Ravish his own Child or Mother or fire Citys and Countrys yet if he did it not with such perfection of judgment deliberation and consent as is expressed it would be a petty fault And he may be easily furnished with many things which will any of them so weaken this as not to hurt him Ignorance drowsiness disorder by drink inconsiderateness negligence forgetfulness precipitancy natural or accidental levity passion custome or habit and the like will serve to excuse any wickedness from mortal guilt Let me but add one more which serves to make clear work the opinion of their Doctors one or more will make any crime not to be mortal to him that follows it any person upon this ground may venture upon the most deadly sin as if it were Venial It will be no more dangerous for he is to be Absolved by their Doctrine though he declares that he will not forsake such a sin (c) Si paenitens nollet agnoscere tale quod peccatum nihilominus absolvat eum c. quia ex quo ille credit opinionem quam sequitur esse veram innixus authoritate probabili non videtur peccare mortaliter sic debet absolvi Sylvest secundum Gofredum v. Confess
a Priest so Aquinas in 4. dist 17. q. 3. art 3. or he may have the Eucharist administred to him without a Priest and it is their common doctrine that the Eucharist justifies one that is in mortal sin if he be attrite and thinks but himself contrite yea he may administer it to himself with the same effect in case of necessity divers of all sorts amongst them are of this opinion The Authority of Aquinas is alledged for it 3. q. 82. art 3. and Cajetan in Matth. 26. The example of the Queen of Scots commonly produced who having the Sacrament by her administred it to her self is highly approved by all Thus far Satan has prevailed with them to promote the Damnation of Sinners by hardning them in impenitence even when the interest of their Priests seems a little concerned But what if a Catholick Sinner relying upon such Impostors still neglect true Repentance and death surprize him so suddenly as to render these other devices unpracticable is not his case then desperate No he may have as good hopes of Salvation as other Catholicks have a probable ground for his hope and none must have any certainty Such a ground is the judgement of their Angelical Doctor who declares that if one sick desires pennance and before the Priest comes he dyes or is speechless the Priest may look on him as if he had confessed and may absolve him being dead Opusc 63. de offic Sacerd. Accordingly Clemens 8. Absolved one whom he saw falling from St. Peters Church in Rome Molfes t. 1. tr 7. c. 5. n. 48. So that any may be Absolved i. e. Pardoned and Sanctified for the sense of the Priests Absolvo is I give thee grace which pardons thy sins Impendo tibi gratiam remissivam peccatorum ut communiter Doctores in Jo. Sanc. disp 27. n. 18. even after they are dead if they did but desire confession before Now those amongst themselves who do not desire confession while they live are such only as will not have Salvation if they might upon the most trivial terms and so none need fear Damnation how impenitent soever otherwise they live and dye but such as are worse than any Devil now in Hell And who can accuse them as too rigid if they make true Repentance unavoidably necessary for such as these since this doctrine makes it needful for none besides All these ways any man may be saved without true Repentance if he will believe the Roman Doctors though if we believe Christ he shall certainly perish that repents not what-ever course he takes besides Any of these are probable and may be by their principles having grave Doctors more than enough to authorize them safely followed but that of the Councils prescribing is infallible and will not fail to secure those who practise it if any thing in their Church may have credit nor can fail to ruine those who follow it if the word of God may be trusted Thus while they would increase their party by having it thought that in their way scarce any Roman Catholick will be Damned they take the course in this as in other particulars that none who wâ—ll follow them can be saved unless salvation be for the impenitent Sect. 9. By this it is also manifest that the charge brought against them in the three last Articles for making Saving Faith Love to God and true Repentance needless in life or death is not founded only upon the opinion of their private Doctors or the greatest part of them but hath that which they count the surest ground of all the determination of a general Council confirmed by the Pope For if Attrition be sufficient as that Council declares then true Repentance is not necessary If grief for sin out of slavish fear or shame only without any love to God be enough then Love to God is needless and if Love be not needful then Faith which works by Love and is the only saving Faith is needless till there be no time for it to work But is it credible that they who sometimes seem to lay so great stress upon these graces as necessary to salvation should contradict not only the Scriptures but themselves and make them needless not only all a mans life before but even when he is dying sure they must have some device to supply in pretence at least the want of these if not before yet at the point of death and will substitute something in their stead of supposed equivalence to them Indeed they are fruitful in inventions tending to ruine souls and subvert the doctrine of salvation and one particularly they have in this case and that is what we before mentioned their Sacrament of Pennance When a man is near death if he be Attrite and confess his mortal sins to a Priest and be absolved by vertue thereof he hath remission of sins and together therewith infusion of grace particularly of Faith Hope and Charity Thus they come to have grace in a moment who lived graceless all their days before and had dyed so if such a Rite had not been provided for their relief By vertue of this Sacrament Love is planted in their heart and their Faith in God and sorrow for sin is formed by Love and becomes saving so that if they dye presently in that state their salvation is secured But what if they live must not these habits be afterwards exercised must not there be some act of contrition in those who never had any before No by their doctrine there is no necessity for it though there be no true actual Repentance without it The question is in one of their greatest Divines Whether (u) An etiam in lege gratiae post obtentam justificationem per Sacramentum paenitentiae cum sola attritione maneat haec obligatio habendi contritionem Dicendum est per se loquendo non manere in lege nova obligationem hanc post praedictam justificationem Ita sentiunt omnes qui putant Sacrameneum paenitentiae justificare cum sola attritione cognita Suarez tom 4. disp 15. Sect. 4. n. 12. 13. in the Law of Grace after justification obtained by the Sacrament of Pennance with Attrition alone there remain any obligation to have Contrition and it is resolved that there is no such obligation and that this is the judgment of all those who hold that the Sacrament of pennance doth justifie with Attrition alone known to be so and (x) Aquinas Scotus Paludanus Capreolus Durandus Adrian Antoninus Sylvester Cano ibid. disp 20. Sect. 1. n. 9. Corduba Vega Soto in Vasquoz Corduba docet quod qui justificatus est Sacramento paenitentiae cum contritione tantum existimata non tenetur eorundem peccatuoâ—m contriâ—ionem veram habere eam aperte colligere licet ex Soto ita Vega. in 3. Thom. q. 86. a 2. d. 2. n. 11. these are the most for number and the most considerable for authority in their Church and Schools Aquinas and Scotus both
account no act of love nor of any other grace will be needful for them that they may be saved Thus in fine here 's a Religion which pretends to be Christian but excuseth and disingageth all that profess it from the love of Christ a Doctrine which bereaves Religion of that which themselves count its life and quite stifles all the spirits of Christianity chops off all Christian vertues all gracious acts and qualities in this one neck and leaves nothing but a gastly Carkase For obliging them to neglect love as needless it makes the rest impossible without it there can be no saving faith no godly sorrow no filial fear no delight in God no desire to enjoy him no genuine gratitude When the life of a true Christian should be made up of these they leave it not possible for him to have one act of true Christian vertue for without love they say themselves there cannot be any one true vertue Here is a way to Heaven for those that never loved God in life or death a path that pretends to Heaven but lies quite Cross to the way of Christ and leads directly to outer darkness A Doctrine that incourageth them to live in hatred of God all their dayes and in the end sends them out of the World under the dreadful sentence of the Apostle 1 Cor. 16 22. If any man love not the Lord Jesus let him be Anathema Maranatha To conclude this head It is a Doctrine which is damning not only meritoriously but effectually and will certainly ruine eternally all that believe and practise it and hath in it the mortal poyson and malignity of a hundred such speculative Opinions as pass for Heresies And beside the danger and horrible impiety of this Doctrine it is ridiculous to the very highest degree For can any thing be more senseless than to ask how often a man ought to love his best friend and Benefactor whether once in his life be not enough in all Conscience nay whether it be not very fair not to hate him And indeed they state the business all along in such a manner and manage it with such nicety and caution not as if they were afraid lest men should love God too little but as if all the danger lay on the other hand and their great care were that no body should love him too much or love him at all I do not believe that things so palpably impious and ridiculous were ever so solemnly debated by men of any Religion whatsoever CHAP. IV. There is no necessity of saving or justifying faith by the Romish Doctrine Sect. 1. THat no man can be justified or saved without faith is so evident in Scripture that none but an Infidel can question it The Romanists do not express any doubt of it and yet they make no other faith necessary than that which is neither justifying nor saving They have two sorts of faith one for the unlearned and ignorant which they call Implicite The other for the learned and more knowing which they say should be Explicite The former as they describe it is an assent to some general including many particulars with a mind to believe nothing contrary thereunto the general is this That what ever the Roman Church which cannot err believes is true the particulars included are they know not what for they are supposed ignorant Now this we say is no Christian faith and make it apparent that it is no such thing For first it is no belief of any one particular or article of the Christian faith It is only a belief of a general which is no truth at all much less Christian that the Church of Rome cannot err or believe any thing but what is true when the ignorant person neither knows what this Church is nor what she believes nor why he should give her such credit So that the act is a blind conceit unworthy of a Man or a Christian and the object a general error And then as to the particulars which are necessary for Christians to believe this implicite faith doth not actually believe any of them at all if it did it would not be what it is implicite It apprehends them not therefore cannot believe them for as themselves acknowledge (a) Neque enim credi potest quod non cognoscitur Fill. tr 22. n. 39. That cannot be believed which is not known To render this clear to us they thus explain it When (b) Bannes 22. q. 2. art 8. Sect. dubitatur secundo Sum. Rosel verb. fides n. 1. a man is asked whether Christ were born of the Virgin Mary and whether there be one God and three persons and he answers that he knows not but believes touching these things as the Church holds this is to believe implicitely So that a man may have this faith compleatly and yet not believe an article of the Creed and if this be Christian faith a man may have it who believes nothing of Christ They are believers at this rate who have a mind to hold what the Church doth concerning Christ or the Creed though they never know what that is They know not what the Church holds unless the Churches knowing be their knowledge and so believe nothing unless the Churche's believing be their faith and so have no faith to save them unless it be saving faith to believe by an Attorney Secondly as this faith may be without the knowledge and belief of any of the particular Articles which are necessary to be believed by Christians so which is yet more strange it may be with the belief of what is opposite and repugnant to the Christian faith This they acknowledge and clear it to us by instances A man may be disposed to believe what the Church holds and yet may believe that God the Father and God the Son are not equal but one greater and elder than the other or that the persons in the Trinity are locally distant Such is the vertue of implicite faith faith (c) In tantum valet fides implicita quod si quis habens eam falso opinaretur ratione naturali motus Patrem majorem vel priorem Filio vel tres personas localiter distare aâ— simile quid non sit haereticus non peccet dummodo hunc errorem pertinaciter non defendat hoc ipsum credat quia credat ecclesiam sic credere Verb. Credere Sum Rosel v. fides n. 2. After Pope Innocent and Hostiensis Altenstaig that if he who hath it believes these errors or any like them he would be no Heretick he would not sin provided he doth not maintain his error pertinaciously and that he believes because he thinks the Church believes it Or such a Catholick may believe (d) Ut puta vetula credit Trinitatem esse unam Faeminam quoniam credit ecclesiam sic tenere sic credit tamen non est haeretica quia conditionaliter credit si ecclesia sic tenet credit Verb. sides n. 6. that the
grave peccatum si absque injustitia et ex honesta causa fiat Conclusio est communis Angelus Navar. Lud. Lopez in Suar. ibid. n. 12. without an intent to swear is but a small fault though it seem a mocking of the Divine Majesty and is cross to the end of an Oath if it be unduly required So they determine also in case one swear without an intention to oblige himself Angelus enquires whether he sins who takes an Oath with a mind not to be obliged he tells us (g) Dicit Panormitan quod si est homo perfectus peccavit venialiter sed ego dico quod nec perfectus nec imperfectus peccaverit etiam venialiter sum v. jurament 5. n. 9. Panormitan affirms that if he be a perfectionist id est a Votary who so swears he sins venially otherwise not but himself says Whether he be perfect or imperfect he sins not so much as venially and proves it by their Law He takes an Oath which in its own nature obligeth without an intention to be obliged he calls God to witness when he is deluding men he abuses the Name and Authority of God for a cheat and yet offends but venially whoever he be says one and sins not at all says another but then he explains it (h) Intellige hoc quum jâ—…ando habet animum solum indâ—cendi juramentum ad reverentiam dei non ad obligationem suam ibid. Vnderstand this when in swearing he had a mind to use an Oath for reverence to God but not for obliging himself So that must be for reverence to God which mocks him and he must be invocated in a way that is most obliging without any intent to be obliged And further to prevent falseness where there is nothing but fraud he must swear with a mental reservation For example I (i) Et in mente habuit aliquam circumstantiam debitant quâ verum jurabat puta promitto quod dabo tibi centum cum ista subauditione scil si sum tibi obligatus ex debito licet hoc non exprimat ut hujusmodi quoniam sic utitur silatione licitâ quod licet ut in c. utilem 22. q. 2. ibid. promise thee an hundred pound with this inward reserve not expressed If I be bound to pay it for such concealments says he are lawful and quotes their Church-Law for it as allowing that which all other Laws of God or honest men condemn 'T is plain by the Premisses that their Doctrine encourages the Roman Catholicks to venture upon all sorts of Oaths in many cases whether they be rash or injurious or fraudulent or false as slight and trivial faults No more do they make of perjury though it be frequent and customary If more evidence be desired take notice only of the determination of Dominicus Soto a grave and learned Doctor and one who was a principal Divine in the Council of Trent he having premised something concerning the hainousness of Perjury that the (k) De just â—… jur l. 8. q. 2. art 3. p. 269. Lord forbids it with a particular EMPHASIS more than other sins that it is a greater crime than murther and is most grievously punished both by God and man his tamen non obstannibus all this notwithstanding he lays down two Conclusions in which he maintains Perjuries of all sorts id est both in promissory and assertory Oaths to to be no worse than Venial (l) Non omâ—e juramentum assertorium licèt sit vanum atque illicitum et subinde quodammodo perjurium est pecoatum mortall Sed crebro veniale Plura sunt promissoria perjuria quae non sunt gravioris culpae quà m venialis ibid. 1. Every assertory Oath though it be vain and unlawful and in a sort perjury is not a mortal sin but oftentimes venial 2. There are many promissory perjuries promissoria perjuria which are no greater faults than Venial and reduces these Perjuries to four general Heads under which many thousands of particular cases may be contained and all must pass for Venial Then for customariness of such Perjuries how commonly how often soever a man is guilty thereof that makes them not mortal he speaks of some mentioned by Scotus who thought that a light Perjury was no worse than venial but if it were customary it would be mortal But he confutes this opinion by a Principle generally received (m) Cum frequantatio actuum non sit distincta ab ipsis actibus non est per se peccatum ultra numerum multiplicatarum actionum consuetudo speciem juramenti nec mutat nec aggravat ibid. p. 270. col 2. that a multiplication of the same acts do not change the nature thereof that is ten thousand Venials acts do not make one mortal sin and concludes (n) Si perjurium fuerit leve ut veniale quantumcunque fiat ex habitu et consuetudine non efficitur mortale ibid. Juramentum prolatum sine advertentia formali non est in se novum proprium et speciale mortale peccatum propter solam pejerandi consuetudinem etiam non retractatam D. Thom. Bonavent Durand Major Scotus Sylvest Navar. in Suar. l. 3. de jurament c. 7. n. 3. if the purjury be but Venial as it may be by his determinations now mentioned in many thousand instances how habitual and customary soever it be it is not thereby mortal So that if a man how calkative soever should neverspeak while he lives but with an Oath or such Perjury as he here excuses yet all the Perjuries of a whole life would not be a mortal sin SECT III. THey determine in their Schools (o) Vid. Suarez tom 3. disp 66. sect 2. that of all sins those are the greatest and most hainous that are against the Theological Vertues and Religion of those against Religion which are counted sacriledg there are three degrees and in the highest of all containing crimes against the Deity and being of God as the most grievous they place Perjury Blasphemy and the sins against the Holy Ghost and those in the same rank with these yet for practice how little they make of Perjury we have seen Blasphemy meets with the same measures they teach it may be but a Venial fault in any of those cases wherein they describe it whether by denying Gods infinite perfections his Wisdom Goodness Justice Providence c. or by charging what is reproachful to him as Injustice Partiality Impotency Cruelty Ignorance c. or by ascribing his incommunicable Excellencles to others as calling a friend our God or attributing the divine Perfections to the Devil or else by way of detestation decrying renouncing cursing God with imprecations against his Blessedness or Being or else by way of derision c. Now it will be but a Venial fault to Blaspheme the divine Majesty in such a manner (p) Blasphemia si ex levitatâ— animi esset tantum veniale If a man blaspheme God so it be in jest that makes it
sin greatly How can that be since he said immediately before that they sin not mortally why there is a latitude in their venial Faults some are great and some less and so wiâ—… him to neglect all Worship but the Mass is a great sin of the little size he gives the reason because hereby they give not to God the things that are Gods and as much as in them lies make the Festivals â—… Christians ridiculous according to that Lam. 1. 7. So that by him those who after Morning-Service spend this day in such Pastimeâ— they rob God of his due and they render Christians in their pretences to the sanctifying of the Lords day or others ridiculous to the World and yet this is but a Venial Sin or at worst but a greâ—… little-Fault not so great as any man need fear no not he who is most afraid of damnation Navar adds another reason why it should be a sin though but a Venial to consume these days in Recreations a Quia in hujusmodi occupationibus multa occurrunt peccata mortalia secundùm S. Antoninum ubi ait omnium lachrymis deflendam esse Christianorum Caecitatem qui graviùs Deum offendunt diebus festis ejusdem divino cultui dedicatis quà m tota hebdomada ad vitam parandam instituta Cap. 13. n. 15. because in such Employments many mortal sins occur according to Antoninus who says The blindness of Christians is to be lamented with the tears of all men who more grievously offend God on the days appointed for his Worship than the whole week besides Notwithstanding this is their way of sanctifying the Lords Day and all other times for Devotion of their own with prophane and irreligious Divertisements such as render their pretences to Religion ridiculous as the Cardinal notes accompanied with such debaucheries as make their holy-days the prophanest of all other It is but a Venial fault at most for many count it not so much to consume the whole day herein without any other religious Act or Exercise of any sort whatever (b) Vid. suprà cap. 1. et Suarez l. 2. de fest c. 16. Victorall infrà Qâ—i audit missam in contemptum diei festi satisfacit-praecepto Bonacin Tom. 2. disp 1. q. 1. punct 9. n. 1. they need hear no Sermous nor attend their Vespers nor use any Prayers publick or private nor read the Scriptures nor sing the praises of God nor meditate on him nor have any one act of Love or Conâ—rition nor any other act of inward Worship at all nor of outward Worship either but only part of the Mass this will serve for all so highly divine and religious a Service it is though they declare themselves not obliged therein either to mind God or divine things yea though they hear Mass when nothing else is needful for the sanctifying of the Day out of contempt of the day yet the Precept is satisfied But if they be not at Mass on those days though presence at Mass may make all other holy Duties unnecessary in other cases yet should they not make up that defect with some other prayers or religious Exercise lest God should have no service at all nor shew of it in publick or private on those dayes which alone are set apart for that purpose no (c) Qui absque excusatione ut peccando mortaliter omisit sacrum non tenetur eodem â—iâ— aliis actibus colere orare Deum ergo multo minùs tenebitur qui excusatur est 〈◊〉 optimum consilium nullum tamen est latum ea de re praeceptum latius docent Navar. cum Antonine Adriano aliis Suarez Tom. disp 88. sect 6. p. ult if they neglect Mass either upon reasonable or damnable occasions to wit if they spend the time when they should be at it in any other wickedness yet are they not obliged to Prayer or any other act of Worship on those days afterwards This is the Doctrine not only of their famous Navar but of Pope Adrian and their Saint Antoninus with others Yea after all other holy Exercises are cashiered as needless on any of their holy times the Mass it self may be dismissed too for company And because all their Religion necessary for the people consists in this at all times when any thing religious is by their Doctrine needful for them it will not be amiss to observe how easily they may be excused from this thereby we may discern of what moment it is in their account to have nothing at all of Religion amongst them Cardinal Cajetan will satisfie us herein he determines that (d) Quia sola missa communiter est in praecepto ideo sine rationabili causa omittâ—… missam in festo peccatum mortale reputatur Et hîc esto prudens admittendo pro â—…tionaâ—ili caâ—sa omne motivum rationi humanae consentaneum etiamsi non fuerit urgâ—… Ibid. p. 304. Angelus v. Feria n. 42. Citans Richardum quodl 1. q. 19. negat omissionem missae in die festo esse peccatuâ— mortale nisi ex contemptu formali vel virtuali fiat quod etiam affirmavit Sum. Rosellae v. miss Turrecremata Suar. ibid. sect 1. initio Sequitur posse Pontificem in hoc praecepto de missa audienda dispensare eâ—… Ecclesiasticum sit only to dispence with one that he should not all his life hear Mass when no reasonable occasion hinders him is not expedient Idem ibid. iâ— fine vid. Bonacin infra it is no mortal sin to neglect the Mass on a reasonable occasion though it be but such an occasion as is not urgent Yea he says (e) Quamvis si minus sufficienâ— sit ratio peccatur venialiter Et universaliter sic est qâ—ando quis bonâ fide putat se excusari ab auditione missae ideo omittit illam Cajetan ibid Et simile est si praeter intentionem ex aliqua negligentia missa omittitur Ibid. It is but a Venial fault to omit it upon no sufficient reason and universally it is no great fault to neglect it if a man thinks really he may be excused from hearing iâ— or if besides his intention out of some negligence it be omitted Yea they may be excused by custome for so he says (f) Hinc anim excusantur puellae non euntes ad missam quia sic est consuetum Ibid. p. 305. Maids are excused from hearing Mass till they be married and their Mothers too who are obliged to stay at home with them because so is the custome If so were the custome it seems all the rest might be excused So many ways at least may these Catholicks be excused from all their Religion by custome or necessity or opinion or which alone may suffice by an insufficient reason it will but be a Venial fault at most together with all religious Exercises to omit the Mass too and that at those times when alone if ever they are obliged to them Such being their Doctrine we need not wonder
or capital they are reduced in their ordinary reckoning to seven Some of these they conclude to be in their own nature or regularly Venial in others of them they state the mortalness so high that those who will be satisfied with wickedness which is not rare and prodigious may live in the sins and not reach the mortalness and so wickedness which is deadly in their speculative account may be practised without mortal danger Covetuousness is one of these capital crimes which in general they heavily aggravate and inveigh against as most pernicious yet when they come to direct conscience and give particular rules for practice it is shrunk into a harmless Venial Covetousness says Cajetan (z) Simplititer absolute non est peceatum mortale ex suo genera quiá non est contra sed prater charitatem Sum. v. Avaritia simply and absolutely is not a mortal sin in its own nature because it is not against but besides chartty To deliver themselves more distinctly they consider this sin either as it is opposed to liberality or to justice as it is opposite to the former vertue they generally determine it is but a Venial fault so the same Cardinal (a) Ut contrariatur liberalitati sic significat inordinâ—…um oppetitum pecuâ—ia sic communiter est peccatum veniale ibld. as it is contrary to liberality and signifies an inordinate desire of money so commonly it is a Venial sin thus Navar (b) Cap. 23. n. 70. and Sotus (c) De Just l. 4. q. 5. art 2. p. 11 â—… and all after Aquinas (d) 2â— q. 118. art 4. So that by their Doctrine if a rich man should be so sordidly so monstrously tenacious as not to perform one act of liberality to himself or others in all his life yet would not this be a mortal sin since the vice which is opposite to all liberality and wholly exclusive of it is but a Venial fault Only when it is opposed to injustice it may be a mortal sin that is when a man gets riches by unjust practices and methods or detains what he has unrighteously Thus covetousness however it comes into the account of mortal sins yet it will stand there as a cypher and signifie no such thing unless injustice be added to it Let a man have the most extravagant passion for riches let him be as greedy as Hell or the Grave and penurious as the worst of misers can be yet if he be not withall a thief or a cheat and attempt not to get or keep an estate by fraud or violence there 's no guilt upon him that he need regard (e) Ut opponitur justitiae sic significat injustam voluntatem accipiendâ— sen retinendi alienum est manifeste mortale peccatum et juxta hunc sensum usurarios sures latrones negotiatores fraudulentos c. avaros dicimus Cajetan ibid. In their sense only thieves and robbers extortioners or cheats are covetous when covetousness is a crime They speak of covetousness as little worse than an indifferent thing injustice added to an act otherwise lawfull will make it criminal and this vice will be no crime upon easier terms But is covetousness a mortal sin indeed with them when it is accompanied with injustice they would seem to say so sometimes but then they unsay it again in their other decisions They allow men to gain unrighteously and to keep what they have so gained They declare them not obliged to restitution of what they have got by sinful practices yea and such as are most abominable I have shew'd before what unjust and fraudulent methods of gaming they incourage under the favour of Venial faults let me here instance in gaming only This with them is (f) Multi ludo qui recreationis causa licitus Sanctus est abutuntur ut negotiatione ad lucrum ludunt principaliter propter lucrum Et hoc semper est peccatum quoniam est dare operam turpi lucro si tamen nulla alia deformitas immisceatur non est peccatum mortale Cajetan sum v. Ludere p. 410. Naâ—ar cap. 20. n. 3. Lopez pars 2. c. 31. p. 183. Venial though it be not only out of an ordinate but an excessive desire of gaining if there be no other mortal ingredient yea though not only the subservient but the principal end be lucre and so that which is only for recreation be turned into a trade And this is not only the opinion of some particular Doctors but seems to be the perswasion of them all for says Navar (g) In omnibus mundi partibus cujusque ordinis laicos videamus magnam pecuniarum summam maximam eorum partem principaliter propter lucrum ludere à confessariis sine proposito nunquam ita ludendi absolvi quod sacere nequirent si in eo mortaliter peccarâ—nt Navar. ibid. n. 11. we see in all parts of the world all sorts of people play for great sums of money and the greatest part of them principally for gain and yet the confessors absolve them though they signâ—fie no intention to give over the practice which they could not do if there were any mortal sin in it And (h) Qâ—eritur utrum quomodo ludus diabolicus alearis sit peccatum dico quod hic lâ—dus non â—…st peccaâ—um vel est veniale quum luditur aliquid modicum c. Sylvest sum v. ludus n. 4. such gaming is allowed even that which they call Diabolical in any place though in their account (i) Navar. ibid. n. 3. sacred at any time for whole days even the holiest that little time excepted wich will suffice the people to hear the chief parts of the Mass or in any person even their cloyster'd pretenders to perfection so they omit not divine service Their mode of devotion needs be no hindrance for with them it is lawful to make a game of their Prayers Lopez enquires an licitum fit ludere preces sacras if it be lawful to play at Prayers He says it is the practice of devout persons and that Navar seems to approve it part 2. c. 32. so does Bonacina after Navar. Rebellus and others de restit disp 2. q. 3. punct 1. n. 8. and not only at Ave Mari's but other prayers also and that it will be no irreverence against God to play with their prayers if they do it reverently ibid. To say nothing that (k) Peccat clericus vel monachus quiludum mortaliter malum spectat si multo tempore spectat saecus si parvo Navar. ibid. n. 14. their Clergy and Monks may be spectators of games and shews that are mortally wicked if they continue not a long time at it and yet offend but Venially They teach further that it is not needful to (l) Nullus tenetur cum famae periculo rem alterius restituere Est communis sententia Cajetan v. restit Navar. c. 19. n. 90. Tol. l. 5. c. 27.