Church and Nature it self since it can prevail without incurring any penalty against the Laws of the one and the other And since the Laws of the Church are also the Holy Ghost's who by it hath given us them and who guides it in all it doth and ordains if custom carry it against the Laws of the Church as this Casuists pretends it must needs be according to him that it hath more power than the Holy Ghost and that the Authority it hath in their School is more to be considered than that of 〈◊〉 himself since he believes that we ought to yield to the abuses it hath introduced into the Church to the prejudice of the primitive Orders and Laws which the Holy Ghost hath established But if these things seem extraordinary and incredible in themselves and considered according to the Rules of Truth and natural Sense alone yet they are not so in the Maxims of these new Doctors For it is not in this case only but in occasions of all other sorts that the custom being sound opposed and contrary to the Laws of God and the Church it ordinarily gains the cause by their Judgment as hath been observed in many places of these Writings Escobar follows the same Rules with Layman to determine what labour is lawful or forbidden on Feast-days that is 1 Servile opus est ad quod servi deputati sunt Nec opus servile fit quia â—b lucrum est factum si de se servile ante non erat Escobar tract 7. exam 5. cap. 2. num 4. pag. 99. Servile work saith he which is for servants and slaves And he adds as Layman that if a work be not servile in it self it doth not become servile when it is done for gain He afterwards sets down in the number of actions which are not servile studying writing travelling dancing And although he affirm that hunting and painting are servile actions he forbears not to say afterwards 2 Pingere ex suo genere servile est Venatio si fist ex officio servile est ut pictura ob voluptatem recrcaâ—ionem minime Ibid. num 8. Mundare scopis tapetibus vestire parietes Ecclesiarum hujusmodi nisi aliqua intercedat excusatio saltem venislia sunt Ibid. n. 6. Num misericordiae opera exercenda De se servilia non licent ut consuere vestem pauperi deferre ligna eidem c. Ibid. num 7. That if hunting be followed upon obligation and of duty as when a Hunts-man or a servant hunts at the command of his Master it is servile as well as painting but that it is not so if it be pursued of pleasure and for pastime That is to say that a servant may not go on hunting in obedience to his Master when he sends him but the Master may go for his pleasure and the servant also and by consequence that obedience in labour profanes a Holy day but pleasure in the same work profanes it not Speaking in the same place of those who labour in cleansing hanging and trimming Churches on feast-Feast-days he saith that they sin at the least venially if they have not some lawful cause He saith the same thing of the outward works of mercy which are exercised towards our neighbour as to mend the cloaths of the poor to carry them wood or other things whereof they have need these actions according to him are servile and forbidden on feast-Feast-days He would have it lawful to paint and hunt for pleasure on Feast-days and he will not have it lawful to sweep hang and adorn the Church for the Service of God He would have us have power to walk dance travel and go whither we will for our pastime but he will not have it lawful to visit the poor and sick and to give them some assistance pretending that works of mercy are more contrary to the Sanctification of Feasts than the sports and pastimes of the world He will not have it lawful to carry alms themselves unto the poor on Feast-days as he saith expresly a little after For having put the Question if those who by a motive of piety do actions which are called servile sin against this Commandment of the Church he answers in these terms 3 Excuiandine aliqui ratione pietatis Aliqui liberant à reatu exercentes die Festo opera servilia ad templa aedificanda vel resicienda gratis ad â—lâ—emosynam gerendam ad ornanda delubra c. At ego cum illis sentio qui laborantes vel hoc praetextu sint necessitate non excusant There are some who exempt them from sin who busie themselves in servile works on Feast-days to build or re-edifie Churches gratis to carry alms to the poor to adorn Temples c. But as for me I am of the opinion of those who exempt them not who labour without necessity on Feast-days though they do it under this pretence that is to say by a motive of piety He believes then that it is lawful to play dance walk abroad without necessity and for pleasure only on Feast-days because according to the Jesuits Divinity these actions are not servile He pretends also though painting and hunting be servile of themselves yet the motive of pleasure and contentment which we look for in them hinders them from being so and makes them lawful And yet he maintains that to sweep a Church for devotion or to take delight to dress an Altar to hang a Chappel to carry alms unto the poor are actions prohibited on Feast-days and that necessity only not pleasure can hinder them from being servile As if the pleasure taken in hunting or painting were more noble and holy â—…an that which is taken in serving the poor and God himself in the Churches He finds it difficult to exempt these actions of Piety and Religion from mortal fin so rigorous would he appear in this point They are saith he at the least venial sins Saltem venialia sunt Filliutius had said it before him in the same terms and yet more clearly 1 Mundate scopis templum vestice parietes tapetibus hâ—jusmedi vidertur servilia nisi aliqua excusatio intercedat erit saltem peccatum veniale non motrale secluâ—o contemptu Filliutius qq moral tom 2. tract â— cap. 9. n. 156. pag. 267. It seems that to sweep Churches to hang them and other such like actions are servile and to do them without lawful excuse is at least a venial sin though not mortal if not done through contempt Strange Divinity that we need not to fear to contemn the Command of God forbidding us to work on the Feast and lords-Lords-days by working for our selves because we take our pleasure in the work as in hunting and that we ought to fear contempt and mortal sin in working only for the Service of God and the Church So that these days which God hath ordained particularly for his Service may be employed according to this Divinity to serve any thing but
him We may give one part of it to pastime another to the world and which is more astonishing and horrible we may give it all entirely or in part to the Service of the Devil passing it over in debauching and finning against God without violating thereby the Commandment which ordains that you should sanctifie the Feasts and Lords-days Filliutius teaches us this in express terms when he saith 2 Dico 3. opera peccaminosa non esse specialiter prohibita in die Festo quasi per illa dies Festus violetur Ibid. n. 147. p. 164. That it is not particularly forbidden to sin and offend God on Feast-days as if by crimes and sins the Feast-day were violated It will not then be a thing done contrary to the Sanctification of Festivals to employ them wholly in offending God but these Holy-days will be profaned if they be employed in the Service of Churches Altars and Poor If the former of these excesses be more impious the other will appear more ridiculous and both together do entirely abolish the Commandment to sanctifie Festivals the one in condemning one part of that which God hath commanded and the other in justifying or excusing what he hath for bidden particularly on these days If Filliutius as well as Eseobar who in this is of his Judgment had been in the company of the Pharisees when our Lord intending to heal the man who had the withered hand to stay their envy and prevent their malice demanded of them 3 Licet Sabbatis bene facere an male Marci 3. v. 4. At illi tacebant Ibid. Whether it were lawful to do good or evil on the Sabbath-day Without doubt they would not have been so surprised nor have been so gravelled as the Pharisees For they answered nothing and continued silent saith the Cospel But these Jesuits could not have been silent without betraying their own consciences and the cause of their Society Escobar would have said that it was not lawful to do good Non licet bene facere since he maintains that it is not lawful to dress Churches nor carry alms to the poor and Filliutius might have said that it is lawful to do evil licet male facere since he believes that sins do not profane these days Opera peccaminosa non esse specialiter prohibita die Festo quasi per illa dies Festus violetur After this Filliutius expounds what sins he means when he saith they profane not feast-Feast-days alledging withal the reason of his opinion 4 Ratio potissima est quia hoc praeceptum tertium quatenus divinum est non obligat specialiter ad non peccandum die Festo Ibid. num 147. Tum quia opus peccati formaliter non est servile ut detrahere pâ—jerare fornicari similis Ibid. Nic obstat quod peccans dicitur fieri servus peccati quia id tantum metaphorice symbolice verum est non â—utâ—m reipsa ut pluribus Suarez n. 7. Ibid. num 148. The principal reason saith he is because this third Commandment being divine as it is obliges not particularly not to sin on the Feast days As if to command us only to honour and serve him and especially on this day were not particularly to forbid us to offend God thereon there being nothing more opposite to honouring God than sinning against him He alledges a second reason yet more strange saying That to sin as to slander forswear commit fornication and such like are not servile actions And because S. Thomas after the holy Fathers and the Scripture hath said that there is no baser servitude nor more opposite to the Sanctification of Feast-days than that of fin which makes us slaves of the Devil and causeth us to give that service unto him which we owe particularly unto God on these days he prevents this reason and touches it only in his way as not making any great account of it It is of no importance saith he to say that he who sinneth becomes the slave of sin because this is not true but in Metaphor and figure and not indeed and really as Suarez hath shewn at large He speaks this generally without excepting any person when he saith that this word He who sinneth becometh the slave of sin is not really true though he could not be ignorant that it is Jesus Christ his speech in the 8 of S. John where he saith That every man who sinneth is the slave of sin omnis qui facit peccatum servus est peccati This is an imagination very novel amongst Christians that an indifferent action or rather good in it self and laudible as it is to adorn the Church should be more base and more servile and therefore more forbidden on feast-Feast-days and more contrary to the Holiness which God demands of us on these days than the most enormous sins But this is a novelty and an excess yet more strange to say that these sins are not properly servile actions that is to say that they are not contrary to the natural liberty and honour of men and above all of Christians Whence it will follow as in effect this Jesuit fears not to affirm that Jesus Christ spoke not properly when he said that he who sinneth is the slave of sin nor S. Paul when he saith that sinners are slaves of the Devil and that he holds them Captives And he must hereupon declare that Jesus Christ hath not properly delivered nor redeemed us since they cannot be properly delivered who are not properly slaves and they are not properly redeemed who are properly in slavery and captivity And finally in the height of impiety he must take away from Jesus Christ the quality of a Redeemer and a Saviour and say that he is but a Metaphorick and Symbolick Redeemer and Saviour and not a proper and true one but an improper and figurative one contrary to the word of Jesus Christ himself 1 Si vos Filius liberaverit vere liberi eritis Joan. 8. v. 34. If the Son set you free you shall be free indeed So that this Doctrine of the Jesuits overturns the foundations of the Scripture and Religion and is not only oppofite to the Wisdom of the Cross and Christian Philosophy but also to the Light of Reason and Heathen Philosophy For the Pagans themselves have acknowledged that there is nothing more servile nor more contrary to the natural liberty of man and reason than vice and sin though they knew not the Author of this servitude and the true Master of these slaves which is the Devil no more than the true Deliverer of these same slaves who is Jesus Christ SECTION II. Expedients which the Jesuits propose to elude the Commandment which forbids working on Feast-days WE have seen hitherto how the Jesuits dispense with Painters Hunters Fishers c. from the Commandment which forbids working on Feast-days it remains now to see what expedients they give to elude it Escobar furnisheth us with two The first is if the Feasts be
attention to the Mass as to their work which is sufficient according to these Divines They go so far as to say that when discourses made during the Mass are wicked and dishonest they hinder not but that the Precept of hearing may be fulfilled This is that 2 Quo pacto explicandus est Soto disp 13. q. 2.2.1 sin cum dicit eisi colloquia sint de rebus indecentibus tamen impleri Ibid. num 216. Filliutius saith expounding Soto whom he will have to be of this opinion and Bauny would come to agreement with them very easily upon this point since he saith in his Sum Chap. 18. pag. 176. That he thinks they are not blame-worthy who hold that Prebends and Canons discharge their duty who assisting in the Quire during holy Service pass their time in scandalous discourses and in an employment altogether vicious as in laughing scoffing c. Escobar concludes this point by reducing it to the uttermost extremity when he demands 3 Audit quis Sicrum animo non satisfaciendi praecepto satisfacitne Ita plane ex Vasquez assertione Escobar tract 1. exam 11. num 107. pag. 193. Whether he that hears the Mass with a design not to fulfil do fulfil the Precept He answers That he certainly fulfils it according to Vasquez 's opinion Sanchez saith the same And that it might appear less odious he draws it by consequence from another Principle which is yet more strange 1 Vere implet audiendi Sacri praeceptum illud ex contemptu audiendo ergo à fortiori cum intentione non satislaciendi Sanch. oper.mor l. 1. c. 3. n. 13. pag. 64. He saith he who hears the Mass of contempt accomplisheth the Precept truly And with much stronger reason he that hears with an intention not to satisfie He would have us believe that we may do the will of the Church doing it expresly against our intention and that we may obey it by a wilful rebellion and honour it by an affected contempt hearing the Mass with a resolution not to satisfie it in what it desires and with a formal contempt of its Command It seems impossible to advance farther in this matter than to say that we accomplish a Precept by an action that we do in contempt of it and with an intention not to satisfie it But Tambourin goes yet farther For he finds means not to transgress this Precept not only with an intention not to accomplish it but even in not doing outwardly that which is commanded though it might be done if we would 2 Potest quis licite in aliquem locum distantem ab Ecclesia discedere in quo praevidet non posse die festivo Missam audire tempore à die festo remoto etiam eo fine ne audiat seu ne tenâ—atur audire Sacrum Tamâ—ur l. 4. decal c. 2. sect 3. n. 6. We may saith he lawfully retire some days before a Feast unto some place distant from the Church where we foresee that we might hear a Mass on a feast-Feast-day though we do it with a design of not hearing or of not being obliged to hear This is a Paradox greater than those of the Stoicks that we may obey by disobedience honour by dishonouring and discharge our duty to God and the Church by sins and crimes contrary to the Ordinances of God and the Church And there remains nothing more for these Doctors to say but that crimes and sins are good actions since they may serve according to them to the accomplishment of the Commandments of God and the Church since God and the Church cannot command other than good actions And this is that which Celot seems to pretend when he tmaintains that he who hears the Mass out of vain-glory doth a good work This is in his 9. Book and 7. Chapter where he encounters with Peter Seguenot and reproves him for having said that though we cannot accomplish as we ought the Commandments of God and the Church without the assistance of Grace yet we may by the force of Nature only and without Grace do all the outward actions that are commanded And to oppose himself unto him more directly he speaks in these terms 3 Ego contra disputo lithali peccato irretitum hominem qul publicae metu insainiae templum Missam ex praecepto Festa die celebrat id ipsum licet imperfectum opus praeveniente comitanteque gratia facere neque obedientiam Ecclesiae debitam infringere Gelot lib. 9. cap. 7. pag. 813. I maintain on the contrary that a man who is in an estate of mortal sin going to Church and Mass on a Feast-day which is the Commandment for fear of losing his reputation though his work be imperfect ceases not to act by Grace preventing and accompanying him and that he offends not against the obedience he owes to the Church This action is out of vain-glory and notwithstanding it must be good and holy if it be done by the motion of preventing and accompanying Grace as he supposes or indeed he must say that a sin must proceed of Grace as of its Principle and that Grace may cause us to sin which were Blasphemy or rather a folly greater than theirs who have said that God is the Author of sin For they have not said that he causes us to sin in giving us Grace but rather in refusing to give it and pushing us on unto sin not by his Grace but by his Power Also Celot affirms 4 Cui veniâ— in mentem dicere nos Christi gratia ad id impelli quod fit cum peccaâ—o Ibid. pag. 815. That it never came into the thoughts of any man to imagine that the Grace of Jesus Christ could press us on to any action which were sin He declares then that he who hears the Mass in mortal sin out of vain-glory or for worldly honour alone doth it by the motion of the Grace of Jesus Christ and by consequence that his action is good and that in this quality it sufficeth to accomplish the Commandment to hear Mass on Feast-days This Jesuit pretends that all those who observe any Commandment outwardly as the Jews and yet in worse manner than the Jews doing it by a wicked motive cease not to have the Grace of Jesus Christ to act by his motion and to do thereupon good works though they be not perfect that is to say though the good motive which is to them as the Soul and form and which should give them perfection be wanting and on the contrary though they be done by a wicked and criminal motive so that they be in themselves true sins and crimes covered with an appearance of good external actions And so according to this Doctor sins and crimes shall be good works proper to content God and to satisfie his Commandments and those of the Church ARTICLE II. Of Fasting and the Commandment to Fast FAsting in the Church consists in abstinence from certain victuals which it hath forbidden
of Christianity should induce the Artificers to fast Escobar cited and confirmed by Tambourin 2 Propter candem tationem poterit quis ex Escob tr 1. exam 13. de jejunio cap. 3. opttarios coâ—ducere cum pacto ut non jejunent ne alias minus laborent Ibid. sect 6. num 4. permits those who hire Workmen to condition with them not to fast for fear they should work less Thus they would have us love God above all things and our neighbour as our selves by hindering him from rendering that obedience he ought and would yield unto the Church that he may be possibly a little better served and gain some small matter in the days work of an Artificer in a time of Alms and Charity The Monks and Clergy-men themselves may find reasons in these grave Divines to exempt them from Fasting For 1. They who work with their hands or who travel abroad about their affairs may enjoy the priviledge which Bauny hath given Workmen Artificers Counsellors and Attorneys Those who are employed in Study Confessions Missions Preaching should not be used with less favour than Advocates and Students Those who climb the Pulpit saith Bauny also pag. 263. every day in Lent are not obliged to fast because of the extreme toil they are obliged unto by their Profession And there is the same reason for Confessors and Missionaries who spend whole days almost in Confession and Professors who commonly ascend their Chairs twice a day and continue therein commonly longer than Preachers It is true he dispenses with Preachers under a condition which he hath taken from some Authors a little straiter laced than himself who restrain saith he pag. 263. this universal and general Proposition to those who have not strength enough to preach and fast both at once in which case they exempt them from the obligation to Fasting and not otherwise And he saith after the same thing of Readers and Confessors As for Readers and Confessors they must know that upon their strength depends the Judgment they ought to make of themselves and their obligation to fast For if without hurt to their bodies they can do it and withal read and perform their duty to their Penitents in their Confessions and afflict their flesh at the same time with abstinence practised in the Church on these holy days Fagundez and Diana hold it for an indubitable Maxime that they cannot be exempted without sin I know not how it comes to pass that they perceive not that the same reason they have in this manner to restrain the Dispensation for Fasting which they grant to Preachers and Confessors doth also oblige them in like manner to restrain that which they give unto Artificers Labourers Travellers and all other sorts of people For if they can fast in their exercise and labour by what reason should not they be obliged as well as Preachers who have strength enough to preach and fast both at once If Confessors and Readers ought to consider that upon their strength depends the Judgment they ought to make of themselves and their obligation to fast wherefore may we not say the same thing indifferently of all sorts of persons of what quality age or profession soever And what hinders but that we may declare unto them that if without prejudice to their bodies they can fast and do all that also which belongs unto their duty they are thereunto obliged and that it is an indubitable Maxime that they cannot dispense with themselves therein without sin Are they less Children of the Church than others and are they less obliged to obey their Mother and to employ themselves with all their power to give testimony of their good affection towards her which cannot be good if it incline not to do that which it hath power to do Father Bauny should remember the Doctrine of S. Antonin and others whom he quotes upon the same subject pag. 261. who speaking of the age at which we are obliged to fast hold saith he that herein we ought to have regard to every ones strength and complexion and to the proportion of their greatness and littleness for judging of the obligation of this Precept Some Rules may well be established to judge who are obliged to fast but there is nothing more certain nor more reasonable than to say that this ought to be regulated by the strength of every one particularly For if we can fast without any notable inconvenience what pretence can we have to exempt our self from it We dispense with them who according to the opinion of the Casuists themselves are of age to fast and who are not engaged in any profession nor exercise which might excuse them from it when they have not strength for it Wherefore then do they not oblige those to fast who are strong enough and who can do it without prejudice to their bodies though they are in some toilsom Trade or are not yet of the age which might oblige them thereto according to the Rules of these Casuists themselves Emanuel Sa alledges these same causes with Father Bauny to dispense with Fasting and he hath added others to them of which this is one 1 Causa reddendi conjugi dabitum vel non displicendi si haec jejunio impediuntur Sa verbo jejunium num 9. pag. 338. When Fasting hinders the Husband from performing the Marriage-duty towards the Wife or causes the Woman to be disliked by her Husband Filliutius saith the same thing in other words 2 Sequitur uxorem excusari à jejunio ratione conservandi amorem mariti erga ipsam Filliutius tom 1. tract 10. cap. 9. num 306. pag. 317. Hence it follows that a Woman is exempt from Fasting for the preservation of the love which her Husband bears towards her He repeats it again in another place where he saith 3 Tum vir non potens reddere debitum jejunando tum uxor non valens se reddere gratam viro ob maciem vel pallorem excusantur à jejunio Filliutim com 2. tract 27. cap. 6. num 119. pag. 289. That if a Husband cannot discharge his Marriage-duty fasting or a Woman become displeasing to her Husband through leanness or paleness they are both exempt from Fasting Heretofore Fasting dispensed with persons for Marriage-duties according to the order and custom commonly observed in the Church and at this day the duties of Marriage dispense with Fasting according to the Rules of these new Casuists They who say that the Wife for fear of displeasing her Husband and Husband his Wife causa non displicendi may be dispensed with in a Fast ordained by the express Command of God and the Church might very well by the same reason have excused Adam from sin or at least have said that he had not committed any great sin in eating only an Apple giving way thereto that he might not grieve his Wife causa non displicendi as many of the Ancients speak Tambourin hath not only taken care of
matter and it seems that according to this opinion we need no other preparation to approach the Altar and holy Table than for to eat at our common tables and that a man may go with the same pace and temper to receive the Communion as he would to a Feast to be debauched As for Priests who are the Ministers of the Eucharist and who consecrate the Body of Jesus Christ upon the Altar and who give it to the Faithful after they have taken it first themselves Emanuel Sa saith that for to say Mass they 1 Potest quis secundum quosdam in necessitate profanis linâ—eis uti eaque postea Domino reddere utenda Sa verbo Missa num 7. p. 501. may make use of the same Napery whereof they make use to spread common tables when they have no other and make use of them after Mass as they did before at table But if this Casuist be so liberal in this he will appear very severe in another of less moment when he supposes that it is a great sin to say Mass 2 Celebrare sine calceamentis si absit contemptus non est mortale est autem si celebretur corporalibus valde immundis Ibid. num 15. pag. 503. Azor existimavit mortifere eos peccare qui sine justa causa tertia horae parte ante auroram vel post meridiem faciunt Sacrum Ibid. n. 27. pag. 509. without shooes though he dare not say that it is a mortal sin when it is not done by comtempt as he assures us it is when the Consecration is celebrated on very foul Corporals But he is yet more rigorous afterwards when he saith it is not lawful to say Mass before day nor after noon without a dispensation adding that they who transgress Rule and say the Mass a quarter of an hour or at most half an hour sooner or later sin mortally grounding this opinion upon Azor. Amicus saith the same thing and acknowledging after Baronius that the Mass hath been heretofore celebrated in the Church at divers hours and many times in the evening it self he saith that this ancient custom hath been interrupted for some time and another new one introduced into use to say it only from the time it is day until noon And after he adds 3 Quod autem haec consuetudo vim habeat legis obligantis sub mortali colligitur tum ex privilegiis quae Pontifices concedunt Religiosis c. That this Custom is instead of a Law and hath a vertue to oblige upon pain of mortal sin as may be collected from the Priviledges that the Popes give unto Monks to say Mass before day and after noon He would say that if it were only a venial sin to say Mass before day or after noon there would be no need to demand a Dispensation for neither he nor his Companions make any great account of venial sins mortal ones only in their opinion requiring a Dispensation that they may be committed without fear or danger So that all Laws and Commandments that oblige not under mortal sin have not any need of a Dispensation according to these Doctors and we may boldly violate and contemn them We have seen hitherto in divers places of this Book and particularly in this Treatise of the Commandments of the Church that according to the Jesuits when the Church commands the Faithful to pray to assist at divine Service to say to hear Mass on the Feast and Lords-days to communicate at Easter to confess at least once a year we may satisfie and accomplish all its Commands by doing only the outward actions which it commandeth though we do them by compulsion in hypocrisie with a formal design not to obey it through any wicked motive and by committing in the very outward action of the obedience we render it crimes and Sacriledges It is now pertinent for us and as it were necessary in the prosecution of this Work to discover the cause of this mischief and to ascend unto the Spring and Principle from whence the Jesuits draw these Maxims so pernicious and contrary to all good Manners Christian Purity Sanctity of the Sacraments Authority and Conduct of the Church and of the Holy Ghost who animates and governs it in all things This we are about to do in the next Chapter where we shall shew that the Jesuits hold that the Church is no other than an humane Assembly and a Body Politick and by consequence that it hath no Power nor Authority over internal and spiritual actions which are out of its Jurisdiction because they are hid and without its cognizance Whence they infer that when it commands any practice of Vertue exercise of Religion or use of the Sacraments its Commandment reaches only to and stays at what is external in these actions without proceeding farther unto inward actions and obliges not to any other thing than to do simply what it ordaineth in some sort whatever it be and upon what design or motive soever it be done that we may represent the Opinions the Jesuits have of the Church its Authority and Commandments we will add this Article to the three former ARTICLE IV. That the Jesuits teach that the Church cannot command spiritual and internal Actions that its Laws and Guidance are humane that it is it self only a Politick Body IF you inquire of the Jesuits wherefore according to their Divinity we may be discharged of the Prayers ordained by the Church by praying with voluntary distraction and reciting the divine Service without intention Wherefore we may accomplish the Command of saying Mass on Feast and lords-Lords-days by attending without devotion that of Fasting by fasting for vain-glory that of Confession by confessing without sufficient sorrow for sin that of Communicating at Easter by receiving with hypocrisie and knowing we are in mortal sin Wherefore we may acquit our selves of Penance injoyned us by a Confessor accomplish a Vow made unto God satisfie a Promise an Oath made unto men and God by doing only in outward appearance what we are obliged to do And why we may generally accomplish all sorts of Precepts by actions which in truth are sins by doing them without any design to discharge our duty and on the contrary with a formal design not to discharge it and by a formal contempt of the Commandment and those who made it having an express intention not to obey even then when we seem to obey it doing outwardly what is commanded If you demand I say of the Jesuits the reason of all these so strange things which we have already made appear that they teach for the most part some will answer you with Sanchez that this is because the Church hath not the power to make Laws which command other than the substance of a thing that is to say in his language what is external in the actions it wills you to do Quia leges praecipiunt solum substantiam actus non modum Sanchez opermor lib. 1. cap.
authorize vice and sin than to approve and tolerate all that which nourishes them and to abolish all that which is opposite to them and may destroy them 2. That the things which beget and nourish vice and sin are partly within man as corrupt seeds from whence proceed all the evil which he commits and partly without man as outward objects which beating upon his senses and his mind carry his will to consent unto evil and sin which abides and acts incessantly within him 3. That the things which are within man as the corrupt fountain from whence comes all the disorders and sins which he commits are lust ignorance and evil habits and hypocrisie or the secret malice of the heart covered with a veil of good intention and that the outward things which carry him on unto evil are the occasions of sin the objects which draw on the evil examples the evil customs which excite them and nourish them and above all humane Authority and humane Reason corrupted by sin which furnisheth Inventions for continuance in evil and in the occasions of evil wherein he is engaged and to justifie or excuse the most criminal actions by imaginary probabilities 4. That the things which destroy or expel sin are likewise of two sorts some as if it were internal and others external I call those internal which attract to and establish in the heart of man the Grace of God by which sin is destroyed such as are Faith Prayer Repentance good Works and a right use of the Sacraments I call these external which do from without represent sin unto a man whether it be by the knowledge which they give him of its malice of the hatred which God bears towards it of the punishments which he hath prepared for it in the other life and those with which he punisheth it sometimes even in this very life or which in any other like manner may give him an aversion from it and hinder him from committing it as are the Commandments of God those of the Church and generally all the holy Scriptures old and new which contain all the Promises which God hath made to good men and all the evils with which he doth threaten sinners There is no person I am confident who will not easily agree to these Truths and general Principles So that I have nothing to do but apply them to the particular Subject which I handle to acquit my self entirely of what I have undertaken to prove to wit that the Divinity of the Jesuits is as favourable to vice and sin as possibly it can be It suffices me for this purpose to make appear that it nourishes lust ignorance evil habits and the corruption of the will covered with a veil and pretence of a good intention That it entertains men in occasions of sin in evil customs in licences and abuses as well publick and common to all as peculiar to every Profession making use of humane and corrupt Reason for authorizing these disorders and to make them pass as good and indifferent and gives for a Rule of Christian life and the Foundation of eternal life not Faith and the Word of God but the Authority of Men and all the imaginations and thoughts which present themselves unto their minds provided they can render them probable and give them some colour and appearance of truth That it abolisheth or corrupts Repentance Prayers good Works the Sacraments the Commands of God of the Church and the Holy Scriptures That finally it introduceth and confirmeth corruption and loosness in all sorts of Professions Seculars and Ecclesiasticks attempting to justifie and excuse those vices and sins which are most opposite thereto and which are to them for all that most common as injustice in the Courts unfaithfulness in Traffick and other such like If I can justifie all these things I have all my design accomplished and I shall have shewed that the Jesuits Divinity favours and nourishes vice and sin as much as men can do and that they seem to be become thereof the Advocates and Professors Which I hope to do in this Writing with so much clearness that no person shalt be thereof unconvinced and with such perfect fidelity that those who are the least equitable because they are too scrupulous or too passionate shall have nothing to reproach me with on this Subject For I will do nothing else but report simply the Opinions of the Authors Jesuits as they have expressed themselves in their Books I will frequently add their proper Reasons and in the more important Points I shall sometimes ascend to the Principles from whence they draw their Conclusions I undertake not to refute their Errours but only to discover them and make them appear This is the cause why without engaging my self to produce the places of holy Scripture or of Tradition any more than the Reasons which may be alledged to refel them I content my self to consider and represent them in such sort that they may be understood what they are and many times I content my self to reherse them as they themselves express them when that is sufficient to raise an horrour against them When the malice is more concealed I endeavour to discover it and to make it evident by some Reflections or some Observations or by Examples and sensible Comparisons and if I make use of any Reasons I take them in a manner always from themselves or from Principles of Faith and natural Light which are altogether indubitable and so evident that to oppose them were to renounce common sense as well as Christian Piety and Religion I meddle not here with matters of Faith nor Mysteries of Religion where it was as easie to make appear that the Jesuits are no less transported than in the Maxims of Morality as will appear clearly by one Example out of the Chapter of Jesus Christ which I thought should be added to that of Grace There may be seen in what manner they speak of the Son of God of his Incarnation of his Humanity of his Divine Person and that they have thereof thoughts so base so unworthy so shameful that they are not more proper for any end than to expose our Mysteries to the scorn and contempt of Infidels and Libertines and to raise horrour and aversation in the Faithful themselves by their impious expressions and reasonings by which they profane Holiness it self and destroy the respect and veneration which ought to be given it I insist upon Moral matters only and even without design to contain them all I should need many Volumes only to make an Extract of that which may be found in their Books contrary to good Manners and to Christian Piety I intend only to collect some principal Propositions by which Judgment may be made of the rest I report them simply as they are in their Books And when I translate them I will set the passages on the Margent in Latine to the end that the fidelity and sincerity with which I recite them may appear
take a false Oath even before a Judge without perjury ibid. Section II. Rules and Examples of Equivocation taken out of the Books of the Jesuits Escobar Filliutius Sanchez Pag. 55 Section III. When and on what occasions one may make use of Equivocations Sanchez Filliutius Pag. 57 Section IV. The Jesuits Method to frame Equivocations and to use them commodiously Filliutius Pag. 60 Section V. The Method of the same Jesuits to hinder their Equivocations from being ever discovered and that no person may be deprived of his liberty to make use of them Sanchez Pag. 62 The last Article A general proof that the Jesuitical Authors favour and nourish the lust of men in all things and the common principle from which they draw all that they say in favour of it Escobar Amicus Tolet Celot Posa Pag. 65 CHAPTER II. Of Sins in Habit or habitual Sins That there are scarcely any habitual Sins according to the Jesuits and that custom of sinning may make a man uncapable of sinning Sanchez Escobar Filliutius Layman Pag. 72 Chap. III. Of Sins of Ignorance That ignorance excuses sins committed without knowing them and even those which are committed afterwards And that there are properly no sins of ignorance according to the Jesuits Bauny Sanchez Filliutius Amicus Escobar Pag. 75 Chap. IV. Of good and bad Intention Pag. 84 Article I. That the Jesuits teach that we may fulfil the Commandments of God and the Church not only without intention but with an intent contrary and altogether criminal Escobar Lessius Layman Filliutius Celot Bauny ibid. Article II. That according to the Divinity of the Jesuits we sin not if we have not an intention to sin Sa Filliutius Sanchez Bauny Pag. 88 Chap. V. Of the Matter of Sin Pag. 94 Article I. That the Jesuits enhanse and debase as they please the goods of this world which are the usual object or matter of sin and so nourish vice and dispense with the Law of God Bauny Escobar Sa Sanchez ibid. Article II. The consequence and explication of the same subject by two examples and two sequels which the Jesuits draw from their Principles concerning the matter of sin 1. That God can no more than men command or forbid a matter that is in it self slight under the penalty of mortal sin 2. That he that hath a design and will to commit all venial sins if he were able sins only venially Sa Amicus Escobar Pag. 98 The Second Part of the First Book Of the external Principles of Sin THat the Jesuits nourish them that they may gratifie the passions of men and by consequence excite them to sin Pag. 103 Chap. I. Of the Maxims of Reason and humane Authority ibid. Article I. That the Jesuits make profession to follow novel Maxims and to contemn Tradition and Antiquity Posa Maldonat Escobar Azor Filliutius Reginaldus Pag. 104 Article II. Of the Doctrine of Probability Pag. 111 I. Point The principal Maxims of the Jesuits concerning Probability Pag. 112 Section I. The Opinions of Layman and of Azor concerning Probability ibid. Section II. The Opinions of other Jesuits conformable to the preceding for making all things probable and to give liberty to follow all sorts of Opinions Filliutius Escobar Pag. 120 Section III. The Opinion of Sanchez concerning the probability of Opinions Pag. 123 II. Point The pernicious consequences and effects of the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability Pag. 133 Section I. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability favours disorderly persons Libertines and Infidels Caramuel Escobar Petrus Michael de Sanroman Sanchez Pag. 134 Section II. That this Doctrine of Probability favours the Hereticks and nourisheth them in Heresie Celot Sanchez Filliutius Caramuel Pag. 137 Section III. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability destroys the Commands of God and the Church and teaches to clude all Laws divine and humane even that which forbids to do unto others that which we would not have done unto our selves Caramuel Escobar Tambourin Mascarenhas Pag. 142 Section IV. That the Jesuits Doctrine of Probability ruines entirely the Authority of the Church of Pastors and Superiors of all sorts Caramuel Pag. 150 Section V. That an opinion probable being once received all the Prelates of the Church and all the men in the World cannot hinder that it should be probable and safe in conscience according to the Jesuits Caramuel Celot Pag. 153 Article III. That the Divinity of the Jesuits is obsequious and mercenary Escobar Filliutius Amicus Celot Pag. 157 Article IV. That the Jesuits Divinity is subject to contradiction and change in opinions Dicastillus Tambourin Pag. 163 Chap. II. Of evil Customs That the Jesuits allow those which corruption hath introduced into all sorts of conditions and make use of them to excuse sins and vices Escobar Bauny Layman Pag. 168 Chap. III. Of the Occasions of Sin That the Jesuits retain men in them and that according to their Maxims there can be no next occasions of sin Sanchez Bauny Layman Escobar Pag. 171 An Abridgment of the Doctrine of the Jesuits about the next occasions of sin Pag. 177 The last Chapter Of the Accessories of Sin Tambourin Pag. 178 The Second Book Of the Inward and Outward Remedies of Sin The First Part. Of the Inward Remedies of Sin CHap. I. Of the Grace of Jesus Christ Pag. 185 Article I. That the Jesuits destroy the Grace of Jesus Christ by their Divinity Celot Amicus Escobar ibid. Article II. That Jesus Christ might have sinned might have been subject unto vices might have fallen into errour and folly according to the Jesuits Divinity Amicus Pag. 189 Chap. II. Of Repentance Pag. 194 Article I. Of Sorrow for Sin That according to the Jesuits we may be justified by the Sacrament of Penance by a natural sorrow and even without any true sorrow for sin Filliutius Amicus Sa Escobar Bauny Pag. 195 The Sum Of the Doctrine of the Jesuits related in this Chapter concerning the sorrow which is necessary to blot out sins in the Sacrament of Penance Pag. 201 Article II. Of Confession and Accusation of Sins That the Jesuits do destroy the integrity thereof Layman Bauny Filliutius Escobar Sa. Pag. 202 Article III. Of Absolution That the Jesuits make it depend on the Opinion and the Will of the Penitent rather than the disposition and judgment of the Confessor Sa Layman Amicus Filliutius Sanchez Bauny Pag. 211 Article IV. Of Satisfaction That the Divinity of the Jesuits destroys this part of Penance Pag. 217 Article V. Rules of Conduct for a Confessor according to the Jesuits Pag. 223 I. Point Rules to examine Penitents according to the Jesuits Bauny Filliutius Dicastillus Tambourin Escobar ibid. II. Point Of the Advice which a Confessor ought to give his Penitent according to the Jesuits Escobar Amicus Filliutius Tambourin Petrus Michael de Sanroman Pag. 225 III. Point Of the inward disposition of the Penitent and of sorrow for sin according to the Jesuits Filliutius Tambourin Sa Bauny Dicastillus Pag. 226
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
not do it should be chastised more severely The third reason is contained in these two words nec ratio id dictat which signifie that reason doth no more oblige us to conform our will in all things to the will of God then the Divine command As if the light of reason did not testifie sufficiently that we ought asways to follow the Soveraign Reason and wisdom which is in God and which is not distinguished from his will And as the light of nature shews sufficiently that we are to follow at all times this Soveraign Reason as the rule of all our actions and all our thoughts it shews also clearly that we are not to follow our own wills unless we will pretend to be more reasonable and more wise then wisdom it self who hath established it for a fundamental rule of all our lives p Post concupiscâ—ntias tuas ne cas à voluntate tua avertere Ecclesiasticl 18. ver 30. that we should not follow our desire and that we ought to turn away from our own wills The fourth reason is q Quia Deus omnia quae vult ex charitate vult nos antem non tenemur omnia ex charitate velle Filliutius Ibid. because all that God wills he wills of charity but we are not obliged to will all of charity It seems that he would say that God wills and doth all things in the World for charity that is for love of us and our good but that we are not obliged reciprocally to do all for charity that is for the love of God and his honor whence it will follow that we may at least do one part of our actions for the world and for our selves for other mens and for our own satisfaction But after he had maintained that there is no obligation upon us to conform our wills to God in all things he adds that he would counsel us notwithstanding to do it as far as we can alledging for reason r Quia bona pars felicitatis nostrae consistit in concordia nostrae voluntatis cum Divina Ibid. because a good part of our happiness consists in the conformity of our will to that of God's Presupposing that another part of our happiness consiâ—…s in doing what we will our selves or in doing what God hath commanded us in such manner as we please Celot expounding this same thing in other terms and speaking of them that live in the world and of the priviledge which he pretends God hath given them above the Monastiques he makes it to be said by a great Saint expressely against his intention f Antistes une verbo eoque hierarchico dividuas distinctasque vitas imaginationes illi permissas admonet Celot pag. 573. that God hath permitted them to live a life divided and parted in giving one part of their life to God and the other to the world or affairs and pleasure of it If it be permitted to lead in this world two sorts of lives different and divided dividuas distinctasque vitas it must needs be that one of these lives be for God and the other not for him else they could not be two lives nor would they be parted and divided if both these ways belonged unto God and had relation to him as to their end It must needs be therefore that one of these two ways which are not for God should be for the world For there is but God and the World the love of God and of the World that can divide our heart and our life So that according to this Doctrine we may divide our hearts and lives betwixt God and the World and do one part of our actions for the love of God and another part for the love of the World and of our selves These two disorders are in effect but one and are both contained in this principle of Filliutius of which we have spoken That we are excused from conforming our whole will to that of God in willing all that he wills and commands and in willing it in such manner as he wills it There is none who may not see how this principle overthrows the dependance which man ought to have upon God at least in that which concerns the inward part For provided that he do that outwardly which God hath commanded he is little or nothing concerned in what manner and upon what motive he do it they leave this to his liberty and pretend that God hath given no commandment therein and even reason it self demands it not of him If they would absolutely part betwixt God and Man they should at least make a more just and more reasonable partition attributing to God that which is the better and the more noble to wit the heart and the intention instead of giving it to man and leaving unto God nothing properly but the outside as if he were not the God of the spirit but onely of the body ARTICLE II. That according to the Divinity of the Jesuits we sin not if we have not an intention to sin IT is one general maxime in the Divinity of the Jesuits that to sin it is not sufficient to do the evil that is forbidden or not to do that which is commanded by the Law of God Nature or the Church But it behoves also to have a knowledge of the evil that we do and an intention to do it By this rule they excuse the greatest sins under a pretence that they have a good intention in committing them which commonly is but imaginary or that we have no evil intention though commonly we have so without knowing it Bauny makes use of this pretence of an imaginary good intention to justifie the hatred of our Neighbour and the good aversion we have from him so far as to wish him evil and even death it self Bauny in his Summe chap. 6. conc 4. pag. 73. We may saith he wish evil to our Neighbour without sin when we are induced thereto by some good motive Which he endeavours to confirm by reason and by the authority of the â—asuists So Bonacina upon the first commandment d. 3 q. 4. n. 7. exempts from all fault the Mother that desires the death of her Daughters because for want of beauty or portion she cannot match them according to her desire or perhaps because by occasion of them she is ill treated by her Husband or injured For she doth not properly detest her Daughters through dislike of them but from an abhorrence to her own evils The good intention which induces this Mother to desire the death of her Daughters is no other thing then ambition and a desire to marry them more advantagiously then she is able or her impatience which permits her not to bear the evil usage and injuries of her Husband which seem unto her more unsupportable then the death of her own children Neverthelesse a good intention of this sort is sufficient with Bauny to excuse from all fault this Mother who desires the death of her
Daughters There is no crime in which we may not find such like good intention and by consequence which may not be excused by this reason For this cause he proceeds and saith that he who should maintain an heretical proposition without believing it who should be a communicant or Auditor amongst the Hugenots without having his heart there but out of pure derision or to comply with the times and to accomplish his designs he ought not to be esteemed an Hugenot therefore because his understanding is not infected with errour So that not only ordinary crimes but heresie it self and Apostacy and all sorts of impieties may be excused by the secret intention of the Jesuits School and we may do all these things without being heretiques or Impious If he had not a priviledge to propound things quite contrary when he pleaseth we might represent unto him that what he saith here accords not with what he said above that he who bows his knee before an Image is an Idolater though he have no design to adore the Idol and onely feignes to do it But it was necessary he should speak so in this place where the question was how to prove that we might fulfil the commands of God and the Church in doing outwardly that which they command though we intended it not and here where he is in hand to make it appear that to sin and to make a man guilty of the transgression of the commandments of God and the Church it is not sufficient to violate them indeed if he have not an intention and design for it it was necessary for him to speak in an other manner quite opposite to the first A contradiction so formal and manifest in a subject so important to Faith and Religion as well as to manners will hardly find shelter under the vail and pretence of a good intention how specious soever it may be and it is certain that at the bottom it could not proceed from any but the Father of lyes and errours in favour of which he seems to have undertaken to speak as well as of the libertines and profane For he and his Fraternity who are in the same opinion with him maintain that we may accomplish the commands of God and the Church without any inward will and his opinion is that we cannot fulfil those of the Devil in violating the commandments of God and the Church if we have not a design in our hearts thereto So that the Devil must be served more sincerely then God and the Church and he hath more power and more right upon the inward actions and hearts of men then God and the Church have For he pretends with other Divines of the Society that the Church hath no power over the inward motions of our souls and that the commands of God are not extended so far as them and comprize not the intention nor manner in which God wills they should be fulfilled and executed But if he who propounds these heretical propositions and publiquely perpetrates these heretical actions ought not to passe for an Heretique because he believes not that he saith and doth amongst the Heretiques neither ought he be accounted a Catholick because he makes not profession of that he believes internally amongst the Catholicks but rather makes a contrary profession He is therefore to speak properly neither Catholick nor Heretick But he is worse then an Heretick He is a time-server a man of no Religion who derides both Hereticks and Catholicks complying with both for the better mannaging his affairs as Bauny speaks and taking up Religion onely as a matter of merryment See here the motives and the good intentions whereby he excuses their crime who maintain Heretical propositions or receive the Supper with the Hugenots without having their hearts ingaged thereto Emanuel Sa makes use of the same pretence of the intention to excuse an Oath c Juramenta non sunt in mea censcientia in fide Christiani nisi quis intendat jurare Quia juramentum pendet ab intentione jurantis Sa verbo juramentum n. 1. p. 295. It is no Oath saith he to say by my faith in my conscience on the faith of a Christian if we have not an intention to swear His reason is because an oath depends on the intention of him that swears They may as well say that a lye depends on the intention of him that lyes And that is very nigh thereto which Filliutius saith speaking of a man that lyes in using equivocation without any necessity obliging him thereto and who swears to confirm his equivocation For notwithstanding their opinion who hold that this man is to be accounted both a lyer and perjurer as he confesseth he concludes for the contrary opinion and saith d Dico 2 prâ—babilius videri in rigore non esse mendacium neque perj trium Ratio praecipua quia qui sic loquitur jural non habet intentionem dicendi falsum vel jurandifalsitatem Filliutius 10. 2 tr 25. c. 11. n. 331. p. 205. That it seems to him more propable that in rigour it is neither lye nor perjury His principal reason is the same with that of Sa because he that speaks and swears in this sort hath no intent to speak nor swear falsely though he doth both in effect and doth it without necessity and without reason as he saith expressely absque rationabili causa This maxime is very proper to license the lyes and oaths which Merchants do make use of ordinarily to deceive others and those who forswear themselves before Judges and I see not for what else it can be good but to nourish and justifie these crimes and tr acheries That which Emanuel Sa and Filliutius say of an oath Bauny affirms of blasphemy having recourse to the intention of the blasphemer to excuse his crime In his Summe c. 5. pag. 66. where he speaks of five sorts of blasphemies and he saith that the fifth sort of blasphemy is when one names with contumely reproach and dishonor the most venerable members of the Son of God Which yet they seem not to do who use them in their common discourse as some ornament of their language saying Death Head Belly and yet are nevertheless guilty Bonacina upon the first commandment d. 3. q. 8. p. 2. n. 2. It seems at first sight that he dares not justifie these blasphemers considering the horrour of their crimes but he afterwards makes use of their intention to excuse them adding in the sequel Nevertheless some whom this Author alledges in this dispute hold that to call upon these parts of Christs body in choler and not with rage against God is no blasphemy And two pages after he proposes this opinion to Confessors that they may follow it in their practice and that they may know how to deal with them that accuse themselves of blasphemy The Confessor saith he ought to inform himself of the penitent who accuses himself of blasphemy whether he did it with a
referred unto vanity without any great sin so as this Jesuit pretends then may it also be related to all other vices that is to say that we may sacrifice and offer up the body of Jesus Christ to all vices which is a kind of Idolatry unheard of more criminal in every sort and more impious then that of all the Pagans who putting the creatures in the place of God offer to them other creatures but he who says Masse for vanity as his principal end makes vanity a false God and offers unto it the true God in sacrificing unto it the body of Jesus Christ And yet this sin according to Sanchez is but a sleight one because the matter of it seems sleight unto him and there appears unto him nothing grosse in it that crosses mens fancies or hurts their interests there being none but God and Jesus Christ offended and outraged thereby in a manner alltogether Spiritual that is altogether Devillish and by a sin altogether Spiritual and Devillish which is pride and vanity ARTICLE II. The consequence and explication of the same subject by two examples and two sequels which the Jesuits draw from their principles concerning the matter of sin 1. That God cannot no more than men command or forbid a matter that is in it self sleight under the penalty of mortal sin 2. That he that hath a design and will to commit all venial sins if he were able sins onely venially FRom this maxime which the Jesuits presuppose as a principle of their Divinity that the object and matter of sin ought to serve for a rule whereby to judge of its greatness in such sort that when the matter is finall the sin cannot but be small they draw this consequence That no Law civil or ecclesiastick humane or Divine can render men guilty of mortal sin when the thing commanded or for bidden them is not great Emanuel Sa saith generally a Praeceptum de re levissima non obligat ad mortale etiamsi qui praecipit id velit Sa verb. Praeceptum num 1. pag. 575. When a sleight thing is commanded the Commandment engages not unto mortal sin though this be the intention of him that commands Amicus saith the same thing with larger extent b Ad obligationem sub culpa mortali necessaria est gravit as materiae proeceptae vel prohibitae sine qua nulla lex humana obligat sub mortali To cause that disobedience may become a mortal sin the matter which is commanded or forbidden must be great without this the violation of any humane law is not a mortal sin Whence he draws this consequence c Unde etiamsi superior velit subditum ad mortale obligare de facto illum non obligabit nisi materio legis aut praecepti sit gravis Amicus tom 5. A. 5. de lege humana sect 8. n. 194. p. 64. Though the intention of a Superiour be to oblige in such manner him who is under his charge so as he should not disobey him without mortal sin it doth not indeed oblige him in this sort if the matter of the Law and of the commandment be not great He passes farther assuring us that God himself cannot make a man criminal by his command if that he commands or forbids is not of it self great and considerable d Nulla lex neque humana neque divinae juste obligare potest sub culpa mortali in materia levi Ibid. n. 198. p. 63. No Law saith he neither humane nor Divine can make the sin committed in a sleight matter to be mortal It would be hard to prove by this rule that Adam sinned mortally in eating the fruit which God had forbidden him since it follows from this principle that God himself could not forbid him to eat it under pain of mortal sin the matter if this command and sin being too sleight a thing If the Pelagians had known this maxime it had been very easie to maintain their error touching original sin and the punishment it deserves and if the Church had received this maxime it could not have condemned them nor maintained as it hath done that God punisheth justly that sin with eternal punishment even in Infants which dye without Baptisme since besides that this sin is much lesse in them then in Adam because they have not committed it by their own proper will it cannot be also but very small in it self if it be considered in its matter which was but an Apple It seems that Amicus was not far off from this opinion when he drew this consequence from his principle e Unde etiamsi possit Deus ut supremus poenam aeternam insligere protransgressione materiae levis non tamen potest ut Judex quoniam ut Judex debet illas inflage e cum proportione ad culpam quae tanta est quanta transgressio ipsa materioe Amicus Ibid. That though God as a Soveraign and absolute Lord might make him suffer an eternal pain who did disobey him in a slight matter yet he could not do it as a Judge because in this quality he is obliged to proportion the punishment to the fault which is not greater then the matter of the disobedience That is to say in more clear terms that God may make use of his absolute power to do unjustly it being clear that he who makes use of his power without regard of Justice commits unjustice and if men cannot do in this manner God can do it lesse because his power is much more strongly and inseperably united to his Justice then that of men For it is founded upon Justice and Justice is the foundation of his Throne as the Scripture saith And so to remove Justice from the power of God and to make this to subsist without that is to take away its foundation and to overturn it So that instead of concluding that it might be separate from his Justice because it is great and Soveraign the contrary should rather be concluded it being manifest that it would not be so great nor so soveraign and Infinite as it is if it were not inseparable from his Justice since to be severed from Justice is not true power but an impuissance a feebleness and a defect which by consequence cannot be attributed to a Soveraign great and infinite power Also to say as Amicus saith here that God can punish the faults of his creatures otherwise then in the quality of a Judge is to testifie that he may act without judgement and not onely without cognisance of the cause but against the cognisance and light of the truth and by consequence to despise or neglect truth and Justice since it is no other then to despise it not to consider it when it is known This is finally to make God like those wicked ones who say in the Scripture Our power shall be the Law of our Justice Sap. 7. v. 7. Sit autem fortitudo nostra lex Justitiae Which is proper onely
Deiparae in which there will be found very little if all that be thrown out which he hath invented himself It had need to be copied out in a manner whole and entire to make appear all the ridiculous and extravagant things that it contains and all the excesses and errours into which he is fallen pursuing his own thoughts and imaginations having not taken so much care to given the Verigin true praises as to produce new and extraordinary which even in this do dishonour her and cannot be pleasing to her Because the praises which are to be given to Saints as well as the honour which we are to render unto God himself ought not to be founded on any thing but truth I will onely rehearse some of the most considerable places of this Author He maintains confidently that Saint Anne and Saint Joachim were sanctified from the wombs of their Mothers and that there is more reason to attribute to them this priviledge then to Jeremy and Saint John Baptist He confesses d Nullus est proâ—me in asseâ—tione hac sed neque contra me cum non sit hacterus disputata Peza in Eâ—ucidarioâ— 2. tr 8. c. 3. p. 547. that there are no persons that are for him or against him in this proposition because none have spoken of it before himself If there be no Author for him they are all against him and the silence of the Saints and all the Doctors that were before him is a manifest condemnation of his presumption and of his rashness in so declaring himself an innovator in an unheard of novelty in the Church in a matter of Religion Molina hath done the same thing where he hath gloried to have invented the middle knowledge in the matter of Grace and of Predestination with such insolence that he is not affraid to say that if it had been known in the first ages of the Church the heresie of the Pelagians possibly had never risen Maldonat who is one of the Commentators on Scripture whom they esteem doth often declare himself the Author of new sences which he gives the Word of God against the consent even of the Fathers many times in his books we meet such expressions as these e 〈◊〉 habere Antorem qui na sâ—ntret ..... â—ames qur quot ligisse me memini â—…oâ—…s sic explicâ—nt ego autem alâ—…er sentio Malden I would find some Author who was of this opinion or all Authors whom I remember to have read expound this text in this manner but I expound it otherwise Which is a manifest contempt of the Council of Trent which forbids to expound Scripture against the consent of the Fathers and an imitation of the language of Calvin and other Hereticks renouncing the tradition of the Holy Fathers and all the antiquity of the Church If Escobar could have condemned this confidence of his Fraternity he would have condemned them onely of venial sin f Novas opinio nes novas vestes exponere vâ—nialis tantùm culpâ— est Escob â—r 2. exam 2. n. 10. p. 291. Qaia ejusmodi inventione quis gestit aliorum laudem captare Ibid. To introduce saith he rovel opinions and new sorts of habits into the Church is onely a venial sin He hath cause to talk of new opinions as of new fashions of Garments for in the new Divinity of the Jesuits who hold all things probable there needs no more reason to quit an ancient opinion then to change the fashion of apparel and if there be any ill in it it is very small and that too must come from some peculiar circumstance as from vanity or ambition Though this censure of Escobar be very gentle Molina and Maldonat as more ancient and more considerable in the Society then he will not submit thereunto and Poza is so far from acknowledging that there is any ill in inventing new opinions that he had a design in his Book not to produce therein any other then the inventions and imaginations of his own mind and for this reason in the entrance and preface he makes an Apology for novelty in which he hath forgotten nothing that he believed might be of use to make it recommendable and to give it admission as well into the Church as into the World imploying for this purpose authority examples and reasons He rehearses many passages out of Seneca saying g Patet omaibus veritas noadum est occupata qui â—nâ—e nos fueruut non domini sed duces fuerunt multum ex illa futuris relictum est Seneca Ep. 33. Dum unusquisque mavult credere quam judicare numquam de vita judicatur semper creditur that truth is open exposed to all the World that none have yet taken possession thereof that they who were before us were our guides but we are not therefore their slaves that there remains yet enough for those who come after us that every one liking better to believe then judge they are always content to believe and never judge at all how they ought to live And a little after h Non alligo me ad aliquem ex Stoicis proceribus est mihi censendi jus Itaque aliquem jubebo sententiam dividere de beata vita I addict not my self to any one in particular of these great Stoical Philosophers I have a right to judge them and to give my advice upon them This is the cause why some times I follow the opinion of one and sometimes I change something in the judgement of another It is clear that these passages go to establish a right for reason above authority which had been tolerable in an Heathen who had no other guide but Reason and who speaks of questions and things which cannot be regulated but by Reason But a Christian a Monk a man who interposes himself to write in the Church in matters of Faith for the instruction and edification of the faithful to make use of the maximes and terms of a Pagan to ruine the obedience of Faith and the tradition which is one of its principal foundations staving off the Faithful from the submission which they owe to the Word of God and the authority of the Holy Fathers is a thing unsufferable in the Church of God this is almost to turn it Pagan and to give every one a liberty to opine in matters of Religion as the Heathen Philosophers did in matters of science and morality wherein they followed their senses onely and proper thoughts He alledges also some passages of Catholick Authors as that same of Tertullian i Dominus noster Christus veritatem se non consuetudinem nominavit Tertull. Our Lord Jesus Christ said that he was the truth and not the custom And this other of Lactantius k Sapicntiam sibi adimuut qui sine ullo judicio invent a majorum probant ab aliis pecudum more ducuntur Sed hoc cos fallit quod majorum nomine posite non putant fieri posse ut ipsi plus
that as the penitent is obliged to obey the Confessor when he commands just and reasonable things so the Confessor is obliged to absolve the penitent when he is well disposed as he is when he follows a probable opinion And he believes that the Confessor is in such manner obliged to absolve this penitent that if he fail therein he sins sometimes mortally and when that happens not his fault is always great and dangerous the thing being of great consequence according to the opinion of Vasquez and Suarez i Et ita credo esse quia ratio proposita ita suadet ac graviter conqueri jure optimo poenitens potest quod sibi bene disposito anditaque ejus confessione absolutio denegetur Nec levis videtur culpainstitutionis Sacramenti ac confessaris muneri contraria Ibid. n. 24. which he approves being perswaded by their reason and because the penitent will have just cause to complain greatly of him for that being well disposed and confessed absolution was refused him Neitheir can this his fault being contrary to the institution of the Sacraments and Office of a Confessor be little Upon this account the holy Fathers and the first Pastors of the Church had committed many mortal sins in refusing absolution to many penitents who could not want probable reasons to maintain against them that they were well disposed unless perhaps the Doctrine of probability being not yet started in those times the penitents were not so well instructed then as they may be now to maintain and defend their rights and Priviledges which this Doctrine giveth them against their Confessors and to oblige them to renounce their own judgement supported by the authority of all the Doctors ancient and modern to submit to the private opinion of the penitent provided that it be probable and to do for them and let them do themselves what they please Escobar is yet more resolute upon this point then Sanchez For saying that Vasquez holds that if the Confessor be a Monk or some other delegate and not ordinary he sins in this case but venially he is not of his opinion and he maintains with others that absolutely and without any exception at all k At crediderim mortaliter peccare si de mortalibus facta confessio Escob in prooem exam 3. c. 6. n. 27. p. 29. he sins mortally if the penitent in his confession have mentioned any mortal sins If any dared to say that a Physitian is obliged to follow the opinion of his patient though he believe his own to be better and more proper to cure his disease he would be condemned of folly by all the world How then dares any say that a Confessor is obliged to be less sincere and less faithful in the conduct of souls whom he ought to heal of their sins It must needs be of necessity that as these Doctors assure us that secular Justice ought to be more exact and more fixed to truth in the Judgement it makes in temporal things then the sacred Justice of the mysteries of Jesus Christ in the dispensation of Spiritual Wealth and eternal Truths on which depends the Salvation of souls So likewise they must assert that the Physick of souls ought not to be so rational so just and fixed upon their true good as those of the body Sanchez proceeds yet farther and saith that the Confessor sins mortally or dangerously if he absolve not his penitent in submitting to his opinion l Imo dicendum est contra Manuelem n. 28. allegatum quamvis Confessarius falsam esse opinionem poenitentis existimet Though he is perswaded that it is false m Tandem huc usque dicta locum habent quando poenitens est doctus vel ab altis instructus de probabilitate opinionis quam sequitur Sanch. l. 1. c. 9. n. 30. p. 31. when the penitent is learned or instructed in the probability of the opinion which be maintains against him But if the penitent be ignorant and know not that his opinion is probable some believe that the Confessor ought not give him absolution in that estate unless he be upon the point of death in which case they think that he ought to instruct him n Tunc enim ait Salas esse informandum de opinionis probabilitate ne in malo statu decedat Ibid. n. 31. declaring to him that his opinion is probable for fear that he not knowing it should dye impenitent But Sanchez believes that this is also too severe and unjust and he repeats it saying p Verùm ego existimo etiam extra hunc statum eum informandum Ibid. n. 31. As for me I am perswaded that even when he is not in this extremity he ought to instruct him and make him know that his opinion is probable He builds upon this that he ought to consider the Salvation and good of his penitent who otherwise may despise his Confessor and do contrary to that which he hath ordained loving rather to follow his own proper sence and passion then to subject himself unto the advice of his Confessor or at least take counsel of some other for the savegard of his conscience which he pretends the q Quod Confessor vitabit si poenitentem admoneat Confessor may redresse by teaching him that the opinion which he maintains so obstinately and without any reason since he knows it not to be probable is yet held by some Divines He believes also that the a Tunc quia Confessor tenetar ex officio bonum poeaitentis procurare ill que consulere illum admonendo tum quia lex charitatis obligat ad peccatum proximi vitandum Ibid. n. 31. Confessor is obliged by his office and by the Law of Charity which he owes his neighbour and penitent to give him this charitable advice this making one part of the obligation which he hath to procure his weal and Salvation and that he is not to stay until his penitent himself demand it but that he is obliged to prevent him when he sees him in danger to fall into sin as it would happen in this case where he sees his penitent wholly resolved to despise his advice by mere obstinacy and being bent to follow his own judgement and to do what he list in despight of him b Cum in ejusmodi peccati perpetrandi periculo videt Confessor eum constitutum cum pertinacem eum videat Ibid. As if seeing the sinner addicted to his own sence disobedient and too obstinate in his disobedience the Confessor ought or could judge that he is in a good estate and well disposed to be reconciled unto God or as if he could hope to put him out of this wicked disposition and obstinacy by acknowledging and declaring unto him that what he maintains against him is reasonable and may be probably maintained and that he is ready to give way to him On the contrary it will come to pass that if he comport himself in this
before midnight that is to say flesh on Saturday and therefore by consequence it is probable that I am fasting For I may regulate my conscience by a probable opinion and therefore I may communicate He finds no difficulty herein Wherefore concluding for this man and for the devotion he hath to communicate after he had well broken his fast on the Lords day whether it were past midnight when he did eat or after he had filled himself with victuals on Saturday if he did eat before midnight he concludes thus b Et volo scire cur communicare noâ— possit nam stando Doctrinae praecedenti potest Et ego in hoc toto petii discursu quod possem negare aut reprehendere nihil invenio Ibid. I would know wherefore he may not communicate for he may according to the preceding Doctrine which renders all thing probable and as for me I find nothing in this reasoning which I can deny or refute See another case of Escobar which is no lesse strange c Non legis libeum haereticum scu de Religione tractantem sed audis alium qui te incitante aut petente illum legit Incidis non incid is in excommunicationem consequenter eges non eges Bullae indulto ut possis absolvi Escobar Theol. mor. lib. 7. sect 2. c. 33. probab 59. p. 289. You road not saith he an heretical Book or which treats of matters of Religion but you hear another who reads it upon your request and upon your motion we may say according to the Doctrine of probability that you incurre the danger of excommunication and that you incurre it not that you have and that you have not need of a Bull to be granted for your absolution You may then follow whether of these two opinions you please but if you be a man of conscience you will not fail to follow the more safe which is according to the principles of this learning that which is more sweet and more large Therefore to assure you yet farther yet Escobar repeats it again d Non incurris excommanicationem nec eges Bullae indulto ut absolvaris quia audire non est legere Ibid. that you do not incurre the danger of excommunication and that you have no need of the favour of a Bull to be absolved And his reason is manifest because to hear read is not to read So you are exempt from all censure according to Escobar though you have made this heretical Book to be read by another and so you have read it by his eyes and have been the cause of his sin and your own This very same thing he expresses in these following words e Hoc verum censeo etiamsi is qui audit legere legentem induxerit ad legendum Inducere enim alium ut legat non est legere Ibid. I hold that this is true though he who heard another read have induced him to read it For to induce another to read is not to read And if you would know the principle of this opinion this is it f Et censura contra facientem lata no illigat consulentem nisi in Bulla exprimatur Ibid. the censure which is ordained against him who doth a thing is not against him who counsels it onely if it be not exprest in the Bull. Here the question is not of him that counsels onely to read but of one who causeth it to be read before him that he may hear it and for this cause he in effect is the Reader more then he who lends him his eyes because he is the Author of the reading and the other is onely the Instrument g Incurret vero censuram famulus legens nisi ignorantia excusetur Ibid. As for the servant that reads unto his Master he runs the peril of being excommunicated saith Escobar if he be not excused by ignorance So that a servant that reads to his Master an heretical Book in Latin or it may be in the vulgar tongue without understanding more of it then if it were Latin for want of wit or learning shall be excommunicated and the Master who made him to read it of malicious intent and sucks up all the venom of this naughty Doctrine shall not and all the force of the Churches censures shall be stayed at the cilly servant who serve for a Buckler to his Masters wickedness The Council of Trent pronounces an excommunication against those who steal Women h Respondeo hoc decretum non habere lecum in quocumque raptu sed in aliquo dantaxat Quare si quis rapiat mulierem cousa libidinis non ad contrabendum cum illa matrimonium non incurrit praedictas coasilis poenas Ita Lessius lib. 4. num 70. Sanchez lib. 7. m. 85. d. 13. num 4. Tamb. lib. 7 c. 6. n. 11. Tambourin exempts from the curse and from all other punishment intended by the Decree of the Council those who steal or carry them away by fome to abuse them and not to marry them Escobar proposes also this question about indulgences i Scio debere apponi opera jejunium scilicet eleâ—mosynam confessionem c. Rogo si ejusmodi opera moraliter hoas ex circumstantiis fiant mala out venialitor ant mortaliter sufficianene ad Indulgentiae lucrationem I know saith he that unto indulgences there ought to be joyned certain works as fasting alms confession c. But I inquire whether when these works which are good of themselves become by some circumstances venial or mortal sins they be sufficient also to gain the indulgences He answers with Granado k Granadus disp 4. num 10. sufficere docet opus esse banum ex suo genere licet ex circumstantiis individuo malum sit Escobar mor. Theol. tract 7. exam 5. c. 8. n. 59. p. 850. that it suffices that the work be good in its kind though in particular it be naught by reason of its circumstances This is a thing unheard of and intirely incredible that an indulgence may be obtained by a mortal sin That is to say that a full remission of all sins may be obtained by a new sin and by a sin perhaps as great or greater then the others and so a man may be absolved and condemned together by one and the same action The paradoxes of the Stoicks are not more strange and yet this is probable according to Jesuits because Granado and Escobar have held it and it is lawful to follow their Counsel in rejecting the contrary Dispensations as well as indulgences are the graces and favours of the holy Chair and as the Pope doth not commonly grant indulgences but with a condition of doing certain actions which he prescribes for the gaining them so neither doth he grant any dispensations but for certain causes which are alledged to obtain them But as Escobar holds that indulgences may be gained by criminal actions so he saith also that a dispensation may
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
well that Diana falls into many contradictions by following and teaching divers probable opinions which were contrary and that he was induced hereunto by a Spirit of Complacency and the desire which he had to comply with the necessity profit and even the desire of the persons who consulted with him So that by his own confession there is great alliance and necessary consequence betwixt Probability Contradiction and a Spirit of Compliance and Complacency which to satisfie the desires and interests of men hath invented the Science of Probability and that they may make use of it more freely and more agreeably unto the will of the people of the World thus trouble not themselves though they fall into contradictions whilst they follow all sorts of opinions In another place speaking again of Diana he saith d Nec sine admiratione legi in Diana in quo eruditio cum benignitate de primatu certat dum casus resolvit erudite juxta benigne plures at varias imo etiam opposita◠sententias ut probabiles sequitur admiteit Dicast de poenit tract 8. disp 9. dub 8. num 351. That he cannot read without admiration because his learning and his obsequiousness contend for the prize in his resolves which he gives in Cases of Conscience with as great benignity and accommodation as learning admitting as probable many different and many times contrary opinions Tambourin seems to design to lay the first foundations of this Science and to dispose mens minds to receive it when speaking of himself and confessing that he happens often to fall into contradictions yet he will not have e Neque me hic contrarium esse suspicetur is qui forte animadvertit me interdum aliquam sententiam approbare quam alias non sum amplexus Id enim tun◠solum facio quando utraque sententia probabilit à me judicatur quod non est mihi adversari sed docere potius sententias illas posse ad libitum tuto excipi Tambor l. 1. Decal cap. 3. sect 7. us say nor so much as suspect that he is contrary to himself when we see him approve an opinion which in another place he hath not received because he hath not done it but in that either of them seemed probable unto him To authorize Usury and give it a free course in the World the Jesuits have found no means more short and easie than to take from it that name which is so odious and to say to them who exercise it that they should not call it Usury any more Tambourin here makes use of the same expedient to establish the Science of Contradictions he will not have us to call them Contradictions nor that we should say that he contradicts himself when he affirms contrary things and which destroy one another CHAP. II. Of Evil Customs That the Jesuits allow those which corruption hath introduced into all sorts of conditions and make use of them to excuse sins and vices THE mischiefs and disorders which come from evil Examples and Customs cannot be expressed and we may say that these are the most ordinary means and the most forcible and puissant armes which are imployed at this day to destroy Christian Truth and Piety and to authorize Corruption and Looseness which abounds so much amongst all sorts of conditions We made it appear just now in the former Chapter that F. Bauny excuses by custom and delivers from all fear and scruple the Parish Priests who are Non-resident The custom saith he in his Practique 43. ch 716. p. 3. book gives a discharge from all and this without fear especially when it hath been long observed in the Church Tambourin takes this rule from Castro-Palao That in ten years Custom prescribes against Law or against another custom legally introduced so that if they have not been observed during that time they oblige no more and whether they were not observed by right or wrong on a good or bad account they may be prescribed against by this number of years After this we need not wonder if the Jesuits trouble themselves but little about the Laws of the Church since there are none happily against which they have not prescribed on a good or bad account Dicastillus by the same principle saith that the Judges sin in administring Justice on Festival dayes unless the custom have prescribed to the contrary Escobar upon this question a Quanto tempore potest anteverti Matutinum Escobar tract 5. exam 6. c. 9. n. 55. p. 661. 662. How much sooner may we begin than the hour ordained for saying Matines saith frankly according to his opinion and of the principal Doctors of the Society whom he had read and examined that we may without scruple begin Matines at three or four of the clock after noon for the day following because it is the custom of many at this day b Usus Romanus communisque Ecclesiae mos suffragatur The usage of Rome saith he and the ordinary custom of the Church is favourable unto them But he ought to have considered that there are customs which are abuses and not usages and that the Church approves not all that it tollerates and that it is to wrong it to attribute a custom unto it which it hath so oftentimes condemned and which it doth yet daily condemn by the same mouth of those who follow it in the most part of 〈◊〉 Hymnes which they say at Matines and Lauds wherein the times to say these two parts of the Office is expresly marked and determined He goes yet further saying that c Qui autem hora prima aut secunda ante meridiem recitaret mortali crimine foedaretur Ibid. he who saith Matines an hour or two before noon sins mortally because this is not the custom For according to his maxim if it were once introduced into practice it were no more sin no not venial no more than to say them after noon See here his words d Si autem consuotudo tulerit hora tertia aut secunda cum dimidia post meridiem poterit Matutinum recitari sine veniali peccato Ibid. But if the custom allow it Matines may be said at half three or at three of the clock after noon without venial sin Matines may be said without scruple according to this Casuist at four of the clock because such is the custom and might also be said at half hour after two if such were the custom After the rate then that this custom goes on advancing and gaining time we may follow it without fear or scruple of sin and say Matines for the next day before dinner as well as after dinner we should thence have this commodity to have our minds more free to say them and all the rest of the day for whatever we pleased to do without speaking of many other reasons which may serve for inducement to so laudable a devotion The Jesuits also make use of custom to authorize Duels and pretend that
according to Scripture There have been Hereticks that have maintained that Jesus Christ was not God and others that he was a man of the same nature as we but there was never any that acknowledging that he was God and Man both at once imagined that he was capable of sinning and falling under the power of the Devil as the Jesuits affirm and testifie by attributing to him a next and natural power of sinning of being in errour and even of that which proceeds from a wicked disposition and deordination error pravae dispositionis to retain and keep wicked habits of being subject unto vices of being obliged to temporal punishments and even of eternal for his own sins as we have now seen in their own proper words 1. If Jesus Christ might have sinned he could not have been the Saviour of men nor delivered them from sin because hereunto it was necessary that he should be himself uncapable of sin according to the Doctrine of the Church and of the holy Fathers 2. If sin might have been in Jesus Christ then sin is no more sin because sin being no otherwise sin then as it is against the will of God if Jesus Christ who is the Son of God and God as well as his Father could sin sin would be voluntary unto him not only according to his humanity which did or should commit it but also in regard of his Divinity and divine person who should permit it or take it unto him voluntarily in the Humanity which should be personally united unto him as well as the other qualities and actions of this humanity which are proper to him and appertain unto him in some sort more than unto the humanity it self 3. But if God could will sin or be partaker thereof by assuming it or permitting it voluntarily in a nature which should be united unto him God should be no more God because he should be no longer the supream Truth which is more inconsistent with sin which is nothing else but errour injustice and malice then light is with darkness 4. This is not the way to withdraw men from sin to attribute it unto Jesus Christ But to move them unto horror and detestation of so strange an opinion it is sufficient to consider that it tends to destroy both the Incarnation of Jesus Christ and even his Divinity it self For as in dying voluntarily in his humanity he did put sin to death and destroyed the Empire of the Devil who was the Author of his death because he suffered this death unjustly being innocent and having no sin at all this opinion on the contrary attributing sin unto him makes him dye at once both in his Humanity and Divinity and subjects him to the power of the Devil to favour and revive sin CHAPTER II. Of Repentance REpentance is a remorse and sorrow for offending God and herein is it the proper and natural Remedy of Sin since as it is committed by pleasure so it must be blotted out by sorrow This sorrow is a vertue which appertains to Religion and it is also one part of the Sacrament of Penance so necessary and so considerable that it hath given even its name thereunto We separate not here these two considerations and that we may treat more largely of Penance we will consider it as a Sacrament and because that in this quality besides grief for sin it contains also Confession Absolution and Satisfaction we will treat here of every one of these by way of preocupation of what should have been said in the Chapter of the Sacraments distributing them into so many Articles ARTICLE I. Of Sorrow for Sin That according to the Jesuits we may be justified by the Sacrament of Penance by a natural sorrow and even without any true sorrow for sin THe first step of a Soul that returns unto God is the knowledge and remorse it hath for offending God 1 Surgam ibo ad patrem meum dicam ei Pater peccavi in coelum coram te Luc. 5.18 I will arise and go unto my father and say unto him Father I have sinned against Heaven and before thy face saith this child after he had departed from the obedience and guidance of his father when he began to resolve himself to return unto him The Jesuits consent well unto this Catholick Truth they do truly affirm that we cannot absolutely obtain pardon of sins without acknowledging with sorrow that we have committed them but when they would expound what sorrow this ought to be they speak of it in such manner as destroys it in effect For they are not content to say that the least degree of sorrow is sufficient to blot out all the sins in the world but they do also maintain that this sorrow ought not of necessity to be supernatural and some proceed so far as to say that without any true sorrow for offending God we may be reconciled unto him by being only grieved that we have not the sorrow which we ought to have Filliutius demands 2 Quaeroâ—n requiratur certa intentio ad contritionem Tom. 1. tract 6. cap. 9. n. 231. If there be any particular degree of sorrow necessary unto contrition And he answereth 3 Dico 3. non requiri certum gradum intentionis Ibid. 234. That there is no certain particular degree which is necessary His reason is 4 Tum quia Scripturae Sancti Patres conversioni in Deum promittunt remissionem peccati absque limitatione intentionis ergo neque nos limitare debemus Filliut mor. qq to 1. tr 6. c. 9. n 234. Because that the Scriptures and holy Fathers allow remission of sins to him that is truly converted unto God without limiting the degree Whence it follows that we ought not to limit it God wills and demands oft in Scripture that for obtaining pardon of sins we should be converted unto him with all our hearts Whence the holy Fathers have taken occasion to say that we ought not to limit or bound the grief of a sinner who is converted since it ought to be with all the affection of his heart and that it cannot be too great nor equal the demerit and indignity of sin And this Jesuit on the contrary saith it must not be limited because it cannot be too little and that it is always great enough to blot out sin See the conformity of his spirit with that of the holy Fathers and Scripture It seems that he would correct his errour in the answer which he makes a little after to this question 5 An contritio debeat esse intentior Whether the sorrow of contrition ought in degree to surpass all other sorrow For he answers 6 Respondeo dico 1. debere esse intentiorem saltem quoad appretiationem Ibid. n. 237. Yes as to appretiation at least But he doth only hide his errour under the obscurity of his words as will appear by the explication he gives himself to this word Appretiation For
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
may be satisfied by a sin and by a Sacriledge It would be a strange discourse amongst men if it should be said that satisfaction may be done to a man for injuries done him by acting new ones against him and that old debts might be paid by running farther in debt to the same person But this which seems extravagant towards men appears reasonable to the Jesuites towards God and they believe that he will take that for good money which passes for false and ridiculous in the world Bauny after he had concluded according to many Doctors that he who refused at the Sacrament to accept a Penance at least a slight one imposed on him for his faults was not in an estate to be absolved after he had represented the reasons of these Doctors of whom there are some who hold this Doctrine so assured that they say that it is a point of Faith that a person in this estate is incapable of Absolution he saith to sweeten this apparent rigour that he who is of a contrary opinion may yet give it him though the other opinion were a point of Faith In effect he obliges us not to follow it and it being sufficient that the other according to him is probable and that some Doctor holds it yea though no body hath yet proposed it a Learned and Pious Confessor as all those of the Society are may render it probable enough by holding and practising it It is true that after all this Father Bauny declares that nevertheless he dares not counsel the practice of it Not but that he believes that may be practised and that he would not be backward to advise it since he approves it openly when he saith that he who were of an opinion contrary to the first which he hath related might give absolution to a person that would not accept of any Penance and that which he dares not advise he makes other Casuists to say whom he cites who believe it probable of which he relates the reason and fortifies it the best he can speaking for them in these terms since all may say they delay to satisfie for their sins till another life they are not obliged to prevent that time as they should be if to avoid sin they ought to accept that which the Confessor appoints them for satisfaction unto one part of their faults But if of complaisance and not to dispute against their Confessor they will submit themselves freely to that which he ordains they may afterwards do nothing at all according to that which Tambourin saith 3 Poenitentia Sacramentalis si levis sit licet pro peccatis gravibus imposita non obligat ex probabili opinione Tamb. n. 1. Sect. 5. c. 7. l. 3. 1. p. decalogi That it is probable that a slight Penance for great sins obliges not the Penitent at all to accomplish it That is to say that a Penitent of the Jesuites may either openly reject all that his Confessor saith to him and imposeth on him by way of remedy and satisfaction for his sins or he may make himself sport with it in private neglecting to do it after he hath promised it Escobar is of the same opinion though he temper it a little He speaks of a Penitent that refuseth the Penance which the Confessor would give him and he makes this question in favour of the Penitent 1 Quid si affirmet se velle Purgarorii poenas subire What shall he do if he say he will submit to the pains of Purgatory He answers in giving this advice to a Confessor 2 Levem adhuc poenitentiam imponat ad Sacramenti integritatem Escobar tract 7. exam 4 n. 188. p. 8.4 That he should not forbear to impose some slight Penance to salve the integrity of the Sacrament That is to say to keep the outward Form and Ceremony so that he make thereto some satisfaction though ineffectual and which may be rejected by the Penitent and nevertheless he wills that care be taken to observe this rule above all when it is perceived that the Penitent is not in humour to do Penance Praecipuè cum agnoscat gravem non acceptaturum 3 Si Confessarius ex circumstantiis confessionis advertat poenitentem saepe alioquin acceptatam poenitentiam gravem non implevisse poffe aliquando vel levem satis vel minus gravem quam alioquin oporteret injungere Dicastil n. 17. d. 2. d. 14. tract 8. de poenitent Or when the Confessor knows that he hath not done what was appointed him and which he hath accepted of because it seemed unto him too painful Tambourin is not so rigorous he would not have any at all imposed on him how slight soever it may be on the contrary he gives this advice to the Confessor 4 Opinio quae docet poenitentem non teneri acceptare poenitentiam etiam post Tridentinum videtur probabilis quia non videtur Tridentinum damnare voluisse opinionem quam doctissimi viri se quebantur citati à Patre Antonio Sanctarel Ex qua opinione sequitur quod si esset poenitens aliquis qui nollet acceptare paratus in Purgatorio solvere non esset hoc praecisè censendus indispositus nec propter hoc solum esset sine absolutione dimittendus quia sequitur opinionem quam tanti viri sequuntur Tambour n. 7. Sect. 1. c. 2. l. 4. meth confess That he should send away without Absolution him who refuseth the Penance which is appointed him desiring to submit himself to the pains of Purgatory for being it was the opinion of so great men it is notâ—credible saith he that the Council of Trent did intend to condemn an opinion fullewed by so great Personages reported by St. Anthony Sanctarel It is not probable saith this Jesuite that the Council of Trent would condemn so great Authors but these great Authors find probability enough in their Divinity to condemn the Council of Trent by authorizing that which it expresly forbid So that the Confessor instead of removing from this hardned and insensible man his disobedience and presumption which he hath when he should be in the greatest Humiliation and Obedience shall be obliged on the contrary to cherish and confirm him in this pride and impenitence If this imagination of this Jesuite be reasonable we must say that the Saints who governed the Church heretofore understood nothing in the Administration of the Sacrament of Penance since by a reason quite contrary to his they diminished not the Penance and satisfaction of Penitents till they found them extraordinarily touched with the sense of their sins and ready to do all that they ordained for their expiation and even when they were already engaged and advanced in the exercises of Penance and resolved to go on to their uttermost extent The rule of these Saints was to diminish sometimes the rigour of Penance on them who believed that they could not be too rigorous towards them and the rule of these Jesuites is
it in this life which is that I have affirmed to be amongst those points of the Jesuits Divinity which I have undertaken to discover I adde that by destroying Penance he ruines at the same time the whole Gospel which began by Preaching Penance and contains in effect no other thing since the whole life of a Christian is nothing else but a continual Penance according to the Council of Trent and all the Fathers So we see that all the places of the Scripture and of the Fathers which speak of Penance are addressed to the living and it would be very hard to find any directed to the dead and which commands or counsels them to do Penance for their sins the Scripture and the Church having always taught until this time that it is impossible because it is impossible to fast after death to weep to wear Sackcloth and Ashes and to do other like Exercise in which the Scripture it self and the Church it self have established the Penance and satisfaction which we owe unto God for our sins Emandemus in melius quae ignoranter peccavimus nè subito praeoccupati die mortis quaeramus spatium poenitentiae invenire non possimus Let us amend and correct those things in which we have ignorantly offended lest being suddenly surprized by the day of death we seek space for Penance and cannot find it saith the Church at the entrance of Lent which is the time which it proposes to all men sinners and innocent perfect and unperfect great and small to do Penance in this life and for it to be remittable to the other world is to abolish it entirely and ruine together with it the whole Gospel and all life of Christianity ARTICLE V. Rules of Conduct for a Confessor according to the Jesuits THE principal Rules of a Confessor towards a Penitent according to them are 1. To examine him if it be needful 2. To give him necessary advices 3. To sound as much as they can his inward disposition and to see if he be grieved for his sin 4. To ordain wholsome Penance for him 5. To give him Absolution if he be in an estate to receive it From all the maxims of the Jesuits Divinity which we have but now related concerning the Sacrament of Penance and all the parts of it it is easie to judge in what manner they would have a Confessor demean himself in the Administration of this Sacrament and what Rules they ought to observe for discharging every of these Duties I. POINT Rules to examine Penitents according to the Jesuits THOSE that need to be examined are 1. Children 2. Ignorant and Blockish People 3. Great Sinners 1 What is meet to be said to those who in their youth have committed many actions of a vitious nature and which nevertheless they believe not to be such That they are not obliged to speak one word of them when they understand and know their nature and conditions and much less repeat their past Confessions Bauny in his sum Chap. 4. P. 150. For Children the Jesuits would not that they should be scared nor any scruple made about the sins of their youth though they be great and they have never yet confessed them whether it be because they have forgotten them or because they knew not that they were so great as they learnt afterwards For they hold that they are not obliged to confess them even after they have received this instruction 2. 2 That if any by ignorance or simplicity have not confessed himself of his faults but only in gross without determining any one in particular it is not needful to draw out of his mouth the repetition of those faults if it cannot be done conveniently because we are pressed by Penitents which give not leisure for it Bauny in his Sum Chap. 4. pag. 150. Licèt ignorantia sit culpabilis mortaliter non est necessitas repetendi confessionem ac proinde valida est Filliutius tom 1. mor. qq tract 7. cap. 6 num 132. pag. 185. Henriq Fagund addunt rusticos omnes qui confitentur aliquando sine explicatione numeri diligentia cogendos non esse repetere confessiones factas antea cum indoctis Confessariis Dicastillus tract 8. de poenit d. 9. d. 2. num 57. Poenitens qui priorem confessionem fecit informem non tenetur repetere ...... certissimum absque controversia est ipsum consequi per posteriorem absolutionem gratiam Idem tractat 2. de bapt d. 1. d. 8. n. 203. If a Peasant or a grosly Ignorant Person knowing not how to confess himself say that he hath never accused himself but in gross without noting out any sins in particular the Jesuits will not that he should be made to repeat his Confessions and accuse himself anew by unfolding his sins by parcels especially when they have other persons to confess who give them not leisure though the ignorance which hinders them from knowing and confessing their sins be criminal and renders them guilty of mortal sin or the ignorance of the Confessor himself be the cause Likewise they teach generally that when the Penitent hath made an imperfect Confession he is not obliged to repeat it and he fails not for all that to receive the Grace of the Sacrament by vertue of the following Absolution and Confession 3. 3 Levius minus exactè interrogandus est circa singula qui plura habet peccata quam qui pauciora quia cum solum requiratur diligentia examen humanum hec autem sit illud quod non generat ex se faslidium taedium hujus Sacramenti consequens est ut minus distincta notitia requiratur ab eo qui vel propter peccatorum multitudinem vel aliam ob causam difficilius posset exactam notitiam reddere Tambur lib. 3. method confess cap. 9. sect 5. num 11. Commisi furtum mortale toties non exprimendo furti quantitatem Escobar in prooem ex 2. num 39. pag. 12. c. 15. It is not needful in Confession to tell the said circumstance of the quantity of the theft it suffices in rigour to cause the Confessor to understand that we have sinned mortally in the matter of theft by taking from another such sum as constitutes that sin Bauny in his Sum Chap. 39. pag. 616. It is not needful for the validity of the Sacrament that the Penitent in his Confession tell the number of vicious desires dishonest thoughts and affections which he hath had or reiterated during the time he hath been addicted to them Sufficit dicere toto mense v. c. amavi Mariam etiamsi possit numerus exprimi Bauny in his Sum Chap. 4. pag. 667. Si utrique parti probabiliter adhaeret non tenetur confiteri Potest enim sequi probabilem partem quam maluerit Dicast tr 8. de poenit d. 9. d. 7. num 277. Si quis probabiliter putet se jam confessum fuisse non tenetur confieri etiamsi certo sciat
this Author bestows on it Escobar expounds himself yet more upon this point 5 Scio vagari mente ex negligentia in officio veniale solum peccatum esse Rogo an si ex proposito id fiâ—t graviteâ— delinquam ad repetendum officium tenear Escobar tractat 5. exam 6. num 157. pag. 679. I know well saith he that it is only a venial sin through negligence to suffer ones self to fall into distractions during the office Now it is demanded whether it be a greater sin to indulge ones self therein voluntarily and whether he be obliged to say the office over again His Answer is 6 Azorium secutus assero peccare ex contempâ—u mortaliter satisfacere tamen Ecclesiae praecipienti nec teneri iterum recitare ut diximus supra That according to Azors opinion which is also his own it is a mortal sin when it is done through contempt but the command of the Church is nevertheless thereby fulfilled and we are not obliged to repeat the office as hath been said above So that whatever distraction there be in rehearsing the divine office though it be voluntary if it come of negligence and not of contempt it is but a venial sin and when it proceeds from a deliberate will and formal contempt though it be a mortal sin we fail not of satisfying the Church and discharging our duty that is to say that the Church may be contented by despising it and God satisfied by mortally offending him Coninck saith in a manner the same thing speaking of the Mass and the manner it ought to be heard 7 Si absit scandalum aut contempeus distractio ex hac parte non est peccatum mortale etiamsi exterius appareat Coninck 3. parte q. 83. art 6. n. 247. pag. 286. If there be no scandal nor contempt saith he distraction is not of it self a mortal sin though it appear outwardly And a little after he discovers the principle of this conclusion saying 8 Non est necessarium ut quis satissaciat praecepto Ecclesiae ut habeat internam aliquam devotionem Ibid. n. 301. That to satisfie the Commandment of the Church it is not necessary to have any inward devotion Whence he draws this other conclusion more express than the former 9 Hinc sequitur eum qui etiam voluntarie est toto tempore Sacri distractus modo sufficienter sibi prae ens sit ut Sacro cum externa reverentia debitè assistat satisfacere praecepto Ecclesiae Ibid. num 302. Hence it follows that he who is even voluntarily distracted during the whole time of the Mass satisfies the Precept of the Church provided he have such presence of mind as sufficeth him to assist at the Mass with some outward respect as he ought And because he perceived that it might be replyed against him that there was no apparent ground to believe that we might satisfie the Church by offending God or that instead of a religious action which it commands when it ordains Mass to be heard or the divine office to be recited it would accept of a crime and that also such a crime as is an irreverence and kind of contempt of Religion he prevents this objection and saith 1 0 Nec resert quod actus externus sine interno non potest hebere rationem verae virtutis cum possit fieri obâ—… malum sinem quia possumus praeceptis Ecclesiae satisfacere per actum qui non sit vera virtus imo qui sit peccatum Ibid. That though the exterior act without the interior be not a true action of vertue and may have reference unto some wicked end this matters not because the Commandments of the Church may be satisfied by an action which is no act of true vertue but which is in it self a sin But if this Answer content not and it augment the difficulty instead of resolving it he adds not to clear up this difficulty but to shew how firm and setled he is in this opinion 1 Respondeo actum externum orationis quoad externas circumstantias debitè sactum esse verè actum externum virtutis religionis Ibid. That the outward act of prayer which is done with the outward circumstances which it ought to have is a true exterious action of the vertue of Religion though it be done with voluntary distraction and which is it self a sin imo qui sit peccatum According to this Maxime if Herod had secretly killed Jesus Christ whilst he adored him as he contrived his design when he learnt of the Wise-men that he was born and if he had observed all the Forms and all the outward Ceremonies of adoration at the same time giving only some signal unto his people to murder this Infant as Judas saluting and kissing the same Jesus Christ with outward respect and ordinary testimonies of affection which he ought him marked him out to the Souldiers who were come to take him this Jesuit might have said of this Tyrant killing Jesus Christ in the very act of adoration and of Judas betraying him by a kiss that which he saith of Ecclesiasticks and Christians offending God mortally in prayer 2 Respondeo actum externum adorationis orationis salutationis quoad externas circumstantias debitè factum esse verè actum externum virtutis religionis That the act of adoration and salutation as well as that of prayer which is done with all the outward circumstances which ought to be had is a true outward action of Religion And because such a religious action was never heard of before and that it is a difficult thing even so much as to conceive this sort of adoration he expounds it by an example quite contrary 3 Sicut adoratio externa in Idolo facta est verè actus externus idolatriae etsi illum exercens interius non intendat adorare Idolum Ibid. n. 296. 3 Bauny in his Sum Chap. 13. pag. 176. Altogether the same saith he with the outward adoration which is rendered to an idol and as it is a true and outward act of adoration and of Idolatry though he who makes this adoration outwardly hath no intention to adore the Idol so he who prays unto God or who adores him outwardly without intention to pray or adore but rather on the contrary with an intention to dishonour and offend imo qui fit cum peccato doth exercise according to this Jesuit a true outward action of prayer and adoration appertaining to the vertue of Religion It might seem at first sight that this is the utmost point of disorder whereunto it were possible to fall in this matter but Father Bauny descends yet lower He demands if the Chanons fulfil their duty and earn their dividends who being assistants in the Quire during holy Service pass their time in scandalous discourse and in employment altogether vicious as in laughing scoffing c. That is in doing and saying other things which we
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
being not willing to receive it sin by contempt And he answers in one word No. Which is so much more considerable because a little after he saith of this Sacrament after the opinion of one of his Brethren that where 2 Asserit praepesitus caeteris paribus majoâ—em gratiaâ—n per illam conferri quam per Baptismum quodvis allud Saâ— a nentum excepto Ordine Ib. n. 24. the disposition is equal it confers more Grace then Baptism or any other Sacrament except that of Orders So that according to the principles of the Jesuits we may without any considerable neglect indifferency or contempt resuse all the Graces that are contained in all the Sacraments of the faithful when God offers them by his extraordinary mercy and we may receive them without any inconvenience fince they will that we may refuse in that manner the Grace of Confirmation which they hold to be greater then that of all the Sacraments There are two occasions upon which the Sacrament of Confirmation seems to be most necessary that of persecution and peril of death and that of receiving holy Orders Escobar speaking of the first saith 3 Puto esse allquando per accidens peccatum veniale temeritatis sine confirmaâ—ione facile suscipienda periculis mortis tradi Ibid. n. 23. p. 796. I think that it may happen sometimes by accident that a man may sin Venially through rashness in exposing himself unto mortal danger without receiving Confirmation when it may easily be had He will not that we are obliged to receive Confirmation even then when we are exposed to danger of death during persecution and being in danger to lose the Faith through Torments though we might easily recieve it and so fortifie our selves by the incomparable Grace of this Sacrament But he cannot hinder truth from speaking by his mouth against himself For being constrained to avow that there is at least Venial sin in refusing or neglecting to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation in this extremity he is obliged by the same means to confess that this sin is greater since it is a constant maxim with him and his Fraternity that we ought to judge of the greatness of an obligation and sin by that of their matter And so Confirmation and the Grace of Confirmation being so great that according to him it surpasseth that of all the Sacraments of the Faithful and the necessity of receiving it in the case he proposeth being so great that therein salvation and peril of renouncing the Faith are concerned if we be not fortified with the Grace of this Sacrament it must follow of necessity that the sin which we commit in voluntarily neglecting and rejecting it will be great or none at all And Mascarenhas makes use of this very reason to prove that there is neither any necessity nor precept which obligeth us to receive Confirmation 1 Confirmatur qu a cum haec res in se fir gravis si de illa dâ—retur aliquod praeceptum obligans sub mortall sed non obligas its sicut dictum est supra ergo signum est de hoc nullum dari praeceptum Mascarenhas tract 1. de â—acram in genere disp 4. cap. 5. pag. 47. This matter saith he being of great importance if there were any Commandment for it it would oblige under mortal sin and there being no such obligation as we have said before there is then no precept in this point And consequently it is no sin at all not to receive this Sacrament It must be observed here that the Jesuits have acknowledged at first a precept for receiving Confirmation and have contented themselves to confine and restrain it to the first ages of the Church in which persecutions were frequent pretending that it is expired in these our times Afterwards they have said that if this precept did yet oblige at present it was not with so great rigour as that it should be any great sin to go against it and that the Fathers and Councils that had ordained the Faithful to receive this Sacrament had ordained it only by way of Counsel and not of Precept 3. From thence they have inferred that it can be at most but a Venial sin to omit Confirmation and neglect the Precept of receiving it 4. They also at length wipe out even that Venial sin that they may entirely abolish the Commandment for this Sacrament and perhaps the Sacrament if self if they could so much passion and injustice do they express in fighting against it It is by this way and by these degrees that they have introduced many Novelties Errors and loose Principles both into the manners and doctrine of the Church which they maintain publickly at this day as Truths and Rules of Christian Piety As for the other case in which it seems that we are yet more obliged to receive Confirmation to wit before we present our selves to take Orders Escobar demands 2 Num Ordinibus necessario praemittenda Confirmatio Escobar Ibid. n. 25 p. 796. If it be necessary to take Confirmation before Orders He saith at first that there are some who hold it a crime to fail herein but he afterwards expresses his own opinion in these terms 3 Asserue rim receptionem prius Tonsurae absque praevia Confirmatione non excedere culpam venislem levem Ordinum verò minorum veniale commissum gravius Ibid. I am not afraid to say that to receive the rasure without having before-hand received Confirmation is but a Venial sin a very slight one and that it is a greater but yet still a simple Venial one thus to receive the lesser Orders He puts the same question again a little after in a Chapter which hath for its Title 4 Praxis circa materiam de Sacrameneo Ordinis ex Societatis Jesus Doctoribus Ibid. p. 888. The practice in the matter of the Sacrament of Orders drawn out of the Doctors of the Society of Jesus in which he demands 5 An Ordinandus debeat prius Sacramentum Confirmationis accipere Ibid. n. 32. whether he who is to be ordained ought first to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation He acknowledges that Tolet judges that they who do otherwise sin mortally and are irregular because of the express command of the Council of Trent which is conceived in these terms 6 Prima Tonsura non initientur qui Sacramentum Confirmationis non susceperunt Concil Trident. sess 22. cap. 4. That those who have not received the Sacrament of Confirmation be not received unto the rasure which hinders not Escobar from declaring that 7 Alii negant adeo strictis verbis uti Concilium Tridentinum sed solum consulere Episcopis ut non confirmatos non promoveant others say that the words of the Council are not to be taken rigorously but that it only counsels Bishops not to promote unto Orders those who have not been Confirmed Whence he concludes with them who hold this opinion 8
Probabiliter ergo tam suscipiens quam conferens Ordinem ante ordinandi Confi mationem venialiter deliquit Ibid. that it is then probable that both he who confers and he who receives Orders before Confirmation sin only Venially This is sufficiently to despise the Sacrament of Confirmation not to vouchsafe to take the pains to receive it for preparation to holy Orders then when it may so easily be given by the same Bishop who confers the Orders But this it also a greater contempt of the order of the Church of the Authority of an Oecumenick Council and of all Ecclesiastick Tradition and Discipline not to fear at least to violate it by a voluntary withdrawing from and neglect of these so formal words of the Council of Trent Primâ Tonsurâ non initientur qui Sacramentum Confirmationis non susceperint As if these words did not contain an Ordinance but only a counsel and simple proposition Which is a very easie way to overthrow all the Decrees of Councils and the Church and to render them entirely unprofitable Here we must take notice of the spirit of these Divines and the licence which they take to play with Sacraments and Consciences They debase Confirmation as much as they can and carry themselves with visible passion to the diminishing of the vertue of this Sacrament which is the accomplishment of Baptism without which the grace of Baptism continues imperfect and Christians are not such but only imperfectly according to the Fathers and on the other hand we see them carry indifferently all the world to confession and the Communion with so much ardour and importunity that they make it the head point of their direction as the greater part of those who follow their conduct make it the principal part of their devotion Which thing is so much the more considerable for that if we pre-suppose even with them that there is no command which obliges us to receive Confirmation so also neither is there any that obliges us to confess ofther then once a year and this precept of Confession is not at all for Venial sins which notwithstanding are the matter of the Confessions which they reiterate and cause to be reiterated so often by devout persons and those who defire to live Christian-like and nevertheless if they knew any one who should divert Penitents from their Tribunals or who should only say to them that it was not necessary for them to confess so often when they have only Venial sins which may be blotted out by other ways they would doubtless condemn him and hold him more to blame then if he had committed some great crime and yet they make no scruple to turn away all the faithful indifferently from Confirmation by this reason only although a false one that there is no obligation nor necessity on them to receive it But if any will say that the custom of confessing and communicating frequently is received in the Church and those who make a special Profession of Piety ought to follow it and cannot neglect it without testifying that they contemn it with pride we must confess by this reason that we are much more obliged to receive the Sacrament of Confirmation and we cannot neglect the opportunities thereof without discovering greater pride and contempt against this Sacrament since it is manifest that the order custom and use of receiving it is much more ancient more authorized and more generally and religiously observed in the Church than that of frequent Confession of venial sins this practice becoming common only of late times and that of Confirmation having been generally received and holily observed from the beginning of the Church and in all latter Ages so that there hath never been found any one Saint pious Person or Christian living Christian-like who hath dared to reject it or who hath withdrawn himself voluntarily from it until our times wherein the Jesuits have begun to introduce this new Doctrine and new Practice of Devotion But it is easie to see by the Spirit and ordinary Carriage of the Jesuits that that which carries them on to aggravate with so great care the obligation and necessity of Confession and of the Communion and on the contrary to diminish that of Confirmation to push on Christians indifferently to these two first Sacraments and to keep them at distance from the last is thi◠that they are not Bishops to confirm men as well as they are Priests to confess and communicate and that in recommending with so much importunity Confession and the Communion they make themselves necessary and in diverting the Faithful from Confirmation they advance the design which they have to make Bishops unuseful and to withdraw the people from their guidance that they may be their Masters therein and reign in the Church without any hindrance ARTICLE II. Of the Eucharist and Penance What sort of Dispositions the Jesuits demand for these two Sacraments and that they teach men to prophane them by Sacriledge AS the Jesuits incline all sorts of persons indifferently to confess and communicate it behoves them that they may bring them on thereunto to make the practice and use of these two Sacraments very easie We have already seen in the Chapter of Penance that they have so sweetned the yoke of Confession that to confess well there needs in a manner nothing but to know how to speak and declare ones sins though in many cases they give liberty also to conceal one part and though one do accuse himself in general without specifying any in particular they oblige him not absolutely to repeat his Confession And as for their Penitents who confess frequently they permit them almost any thing even to deceive them and lye in Confession without believing they commit any great fault provided it be only in a matter of venial sin that if they have committed mortal sins which they are ashamed to discover they may by the advice of these directors confess them to other Priests to preserve their reputation with their ordinary Confessor They will also make their Penance as easie as their Confession if they please For if they be not in a humour to perform it that they may give them neither trouble nor scruple they will impose it on them only by way of counsel or without prescribing them any thing in particular they are content to say unto them Impono tibi pro poenitentia quiequid hodie vel hac hebdomada boni feceris vel mali passus fueris I impose upon you for Penance whatsoever good you shall do or evil you shall suffer this day or this week If a person over-run with crimes address himself to them and be troubled to make known the bottom of his Conscience and to discover the corruption of his Heart by declaring his wicked inclinations and habits they will not press on him in this point no more then to tell them in particular the number of his wicked desires impurities and secret crimes which move in his
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
confessionem ritè dispositi That the common opinion of the Doctors is that the Confessor ought to give this counsel But he declares at the same time that it is not his and that the opinion of Sancius pleases him better to wit that this counsel ought not to be given these persons but rather to incline them to communicate provided they be well disposed thereunto by Confession And he would not only that a Confessor should not divert them from the Communion but he pretends also 4 Deinde etiam consulendum ne poenitentes defraudentur gratiâ hujus Sacramenti aliis plurimis effectibus Ideo reus erit qui dignum poenitentem communione defraudar ille talis dignus est That he is obliged to incline them to it that he may not deprive the Penitent of the Grace of this Sacrament and many other effects And this obligation according to him is so strict that the Confessor makes himself guilty reus erit if he deprive a Penitent of the Communion who is worthy of it as he is of whom the question proceeds If a Confessor is guilty for not inclining unto the Communion those who are fallen the same day into voluntary and mortal pollution S. Paul will be much more so in the judgment of this Divine when he counsels married persons to abstain from the use of Marriage which though lawful renders married persons indisposed unto prayer which will be false And by consequence the counsel which he gives them upon this Principle to live in continence that they may pray will be ill founded and rash if the crimes of Luxury hinder not those who have committed them from going the same day to the Communion and gives not power unto a Confessor to counsel them to abstain from it it being manifest that the Communion requires a greater purity and preparation than prayer The Church also must have been many Ages in errour when it did not only counsel but also command by many express Canons that those who were fallen into mortal sins of impurity and others should be deprived many years of the Communion what remorse soever they testified for their crimes The reason of this Jesuit is that wrong would be done unto this sinner by depriving him of the grace and fruits of the Sacrament Ne defraudetur gratia hujus Sacramenti aliis plurimis effectibus He supposes that he is truly converted in a moment being one step out of his debauches and that he is entred all at once without doing any thing else but confessing himself into the dispositions necessary for receiving the grace and effects of the Communion which is notwithstanding at the least very doubtful there being cause to fear rather that the Communion might turn to his condemnation than to presume that he shall receive the fruits and blessings which it communicates unto those who receive it worthily This consideration for all that and this fear touches not nor astonishes this Jesuit For though it were manifest that this sinner were not re-entred into the Grace of God by Confession and that he should commit Sacriledge by communicating in an estate of mortal sin he pretends that however though he received not at the present the grace and other effects of the Communion he yet should not for all that wholly lose them but they should be held in reserve and kept for him until such time as he should receive more purely This is that he testifies when he saith 1 Ille qui cum obice â—ccedit habâ—t jus ad gratiam sublato obice Ergo ablato obic hoc Sacramentum preducit offictum Mascorenhas tr 1. de Sacr. in gen disp 4. cap. 5. num 211. That he who approach th unto the Eucharist with some hindrance contrary unto Grace hath a right to receive it when the hindrance is removed and by consequence the Sacrament produces its effect so soon as the hindrance ceases Whence it follows that a man by Sacriledges acquires right to the Grace of the Sacraments instead of drawing down the curse of God upon him and that the more Sacriledges and Profanations he commits the more treasure of Grace he heaps up instead of heaping up treasures of wrath and depriving himself more and more of the rights of the Children of God by withdrawing himself farther from him But we need not mark more particularly the incredible absurdities and impertinences of this Doctrine since he who produced it himself avows a good part of them and confesses freely 2 Non obstat quod si aliquis qui multories cum peccato communicaret postea convertatur acquirat subito totam illam gratiam debiâ—am tali Sacramento toties sumpto si bene licite communicarer That it follows thence that if a man after he have communicated many times in a bad estate come to be converted he shall receive in an instant all the Grace that was due to so many Communions though they were celobrated in an unworthy manner This is an horrible way to become a Saint in a moment by sacrilegious Communions and a puissant reason to incline the greatest sinners frequently to commit and reiterate them because they will be so many provisions of Grace which will produce an abundance capable to replenish the Soul in all parts as soon as it is pleased to turn it self so that they shall surpass in Holiness many of those who have lived in innocence when they were plunged in vices He alledges for one reason of so many impieties and impertinences 3 Nam in hoc ipso magis apparet misericordia clement a Christi Domini virtus efficacis tanti Sacramenti quod maxime per hoc extollitur amplificatur That herein will appear with more advantage the mercy and clemency of Jesus Christ and the vertue and efficacy of so great a Sacrament which will in consequence thereof become more frequent and honoured It is without doubt that the Communions will be more frequent if the greatest sinners be admitted and even invited thereto by making them believe that though they commit Sacriledges they acquire a right unto the Grace of the Sacrament which they prophane But to pretend that Jesus Christ is honoured by these kinds of Communions is to pretend that he is honoured by Sacriledges and to place his mercy in this is to imagine that it consists in the prophanation of the most holy Mysteries and in the loss of Souls It appears indeed therein very great as well as his patience but it is in that he supports those who commit these Sacriledges and those who authorize and provoke men to commit them by their wicked Doctrine He farther affirms 4 Dices cum P. Lug. lisp 9. sect 6. n. 208. in fine Ex hac doctrina sequeretur quod homo fieret repen te sanctissimus propter plura â—acrilegia co sanctior quò plura suissent sacrilegis muâ—tò sanctior si singulis diâ—bus contra leges Ecclesiae
decies velcenties celebrasset quod ex se incredibile apparet That it follows from this Doctrine that a man may become most holy in an instant because of many Sacriledges which he hath committed and so much the more holy as he hath committed more of them and yet more holy if he have communicated or said the Mass ten or an hundred times a day contrary to the Rules of the Church which appears in it self incredible It is true that this is incredible so extravagant and impious is it But this Jesuit attempts to make it credible and reasonable by a Chimerical and imaginary distinction saying 5 Respondeo in tali casu non fieri hominem repentssilmè sanctissimum propter plura sacrilegia commissa sed propter plures communiones That this man will not become in an instant most holy by having committed many Sacriledges but for having communicated many times As if many Communions made in mortal sin and many Sacriledges were not the same thing He adds that 6 Et si tò fit sanctior quò plura fuissent sacrilegis hoc non sequi per se sed per accidens Per se enim tale augmentum gratiae sanctitatis provenit ex pluribus sumptionibus Eucharistiae per accidens est quod tales sumptiones suerint sacrilegae Ibid. If he become so much more holy by how many more Sacriledges he hath committed this proceeds not directly from the Sacriledges but by accident For this increase of Grace and Holiness comes properly from the great number of Communions which he hath celebrated and it happened by accident that these Communions were Sacriledges If we may not say according to him supposing that these sacrilegious Communious produce Grace that they are the Sacriledges but only the Communions that produce it neither according to him may we say that this man hath sinned in communicating but only in committing Sacriledges nor that any Communions do hurt sinners but only the Sacriledges which they commit in communicating for the Communion of it self hurts none and is not evil of it self but only the abuse and the Sacriledge which they adjoyn to it by their fault The reason by which he props this rare subtlety is ridiculous He saith that it is by accident that these Communions become Sacriledges But although it be true that the Communion in it self and in general contains not Sacriledge therein and that it comes by accident which befals it nevertheless it is true that these particular Communions made with these particular circumstances and in this estate of mortal sin contain Sacriledge therein in such sort that it is impossible to separate them and it is the same thing in this particular Communion to be a Communion and to be a Sacriledge And so it is not by accident that it is a Sacriledge but of it self and of its proper nature And by consequence as it may be said truly that this Communion makes a man guilty and kills him though it kill him not as a Communion in general but as a Communion sacrilegious in particular so we may say with truth that this Sacriledge sanctifies not the man if it be true that this sacrilegious Communion gives him right unto Grace though it give him not this right as Sacriledge but as a Communion I speak not here of Eâ—tream-unction for that my design being only to represent the Maxims of the Jesuits Morals the excess which they commit in the matter of this Sacrament doth respect the Doctrine and Discipline of the Church rather than Manners I might very well treat here of Orders and Marriage and thereby make the corruptions and abuses appear which they have introduced and cherished in married persons and Ecclesiasticks but because this may be done more conveniently and more to purpose as in its proper place when we speak of the Duties of these two Estates I will speak here only a few things concerning Priests so far as they are the Churches Deputies to administer the Sacraments and Word of God unto the Faithful and to offer unto him in the name of the Faithful the publick Sacrifice and Prayers Where I shall make appear particularly the corruption which the Jesuits introduce into these estates ARTICLE III. Of the Sacrament of Marriage WE may consider in Marriage the dispositions that precede the consent of the Parties the blessing of the Church which establisheth it and the use which follows thereupon We may sin many ways in these three things but the Jesuits know how to take away or diminish these sins by their obsequious Divinity The first disposition unto Marriage is to have no impediment which may make it null or unlawful Concerning this Tambourin establisheth these Rules 1 Si facts diligentia dubites de impedimentodirimenti ad ducendam ali quam potes illam sine dispensatione ducere Ita Merolla Sanch. Si dubites an indigeas aliqua dispensatione in impedimento dirimenti ad contrahendum matrimonium cum aliqua in similibus potes tibi persuadere eâ non indigere consequenter posse te matrimonium inite 5. Si vero certus es te indigere dispensatione sed dubius an illam obtinueris praevalet indigentia certa contra dublam dispensationem At si certus es de indigentia seu impedimento item certus quod obtinueris dispensationem sed ambigis an dispensatio sit valids quia dubitas an causa in petitione dispensationis tacitò vel falsò expressa fit finalis hoc est ut sine illa adhuc fuisset concessa vel quia dubitas an Superior qui est in certa possessione â—…perioritatis in aliquem sit Superior legitimus necne validane erit judicanda dispensatio Praesumendum esse valiâ—am Utraque opinio â—…ltem prop er authoritatem extrinsecam probabilis est Tambur lib. 1. cap. 3. sect 6. verbo â—…spensatio num 1 3 5. If after things are well considered you are in doubt of some dissolving impediment which makes you incapable to marry some person you may marry her without dispensation When you doubt whether you have need of a dispensation to contract Marriage you may perswade your self that you have no need but if you be assured that you have need to be dispensed with and you doubt whether you have obtained it the assurance of the need which you have prevails above the uncertainty of the dispensation But if you be assured that you have need of a dispensation and that you are engaged in some impediment of Marriage as also that you have obtained a dispensation and you doubt whether this dispensation be valid because you doubt whether a cause whiâ—h hath not been expressed in your demand of the dispensation or which hath been falsely alledged therein is such that without it the dispensation had not been granted or because you doubt whether the Superiour who hath granted it and who is in possession of the superiority be legitimate may we judge in this case that the dispensation
statim confiteri Respondetur negative Ita Lugo num 150. est communis sententia quia Concllium solum loquitur de co qui ob urgentem necessitatem sine consessione celebrat Dicastill tract 4. de Euch. d. 9. d. 9. num 155. That it obligeth only Priests who have said Mass in some great and urgent necessity If then he say Mass being in mortal sin without necessity he shall not be obliged yea though he also did it maliciously he should not be obliged ex mera malitia And they find so little irreverence and so little evil in administring the Sacraments and offering Sacrifice in this manner that they even permit the Faithful to exact of them these Functions without any necessity although they also know that they are in an estate of sin 1 Licet cuicunque petere recipere Sacramentum Sicerdote existente in mortali etiam non Paroche nec parato allas ipsum conserre si perenti ea receprio futura sit commodior vel utillor quam si ab alio peteretur Idem tract 1. de Sacram. d. 3. d. 13. num 296. It is lawful for every one saith Dicastillus to demand and receive the Sacraments of a Priest who is in the estate of mortal sin though he be not his Parish-Priest nor be designed for it nor so much as disposed to administer them unto him if he find it more for his convenience and benefit than to demand it of others It is as casie a matter to receive the Sacraments as to administer them there is no more preparation for the one than for the other And if these Maxims were well grounded we might complain of the rigour and severity of the Jesuits seeing the Sacraments are not yet so frequented as they ought to be since in what estate soever we receive or give them there is so much to gain and nothing to lose THE SECOND PART OF THE SECOND BOOK Of the Outward Remedies of SIN That the Divinity of the Jesuits abolishes or corrupts them THE Physitian labours for his Patient when he prescribes what he ought to do as well as when he presents unto him what he ought to take for his Cure Whence it comes that they say commonly that he hath given him a good Remedy when he hath given him good advice how to remove the Disease whereof he is sick So that not only the things which he prescribes but the prescriptions themselves are remedies but with this difference that what he prescribes as Purges and Medicines are the inward remedies because they act upon the disease it self and have an internal vertue proper to destroy it when they are taken effectually but the prescriptions are as it were external remedies because they act not immediately upon the disease but only upon the mind of the discased by the knowledge they give him of his disease and of what he ought to do for his cure We must say the same thing holding the Rules of Proportion of our Souls diseases and remedies We have already observed that Grace Penance good Works and the Sacraments are the internal remedies of sin because they have a divine and internal vertue which the Spirit of God hath impressed upon them to expel sin from the Soul or to prevent its entrance thereinto And we say here that the holy Scripture the Commandments of God and those of the Church are the external remedies of the same sin because though they act not immediately upon sin they act upon the mind of the sinner and if they change not his will internally they touch his mind and conscience externally by the knowledge they give him of sin and by the fear which they impress upon him of the punishments with which God hath threatned those who commit them We have seen in the former Part of this second Book that the Jesuits destroy the internal remedies of sin we shall see here in this how they abolish or corrupt the external and so it will appear that they favour and cherish sin as much as they can This second Part shall have three Chapters The first shall be of the Corruption of Scripture The second of the Commandments of God And the third of the Commandments of the Church CHAPTER I. Of the Corruption of Scripture That the Jesuits corrupt the Scriptures divers ways THere are only three things to be considered in the holy Scripture the Letter the Sense and the Authority And accordingly we may distinguish three different manners of corrupting holy Scripture 1. In the Letter by adding taking away or changing something in the sacred Text. 2. In the Sense by false Expositions 3. In the Authority by debasing the Author and diminishing the belief that is due unto him Now let us see in what manner the Jesuits have corrupted and yet do every day corrupt the holy Scripture We might compose great Volumes of Passages which they have altered by false Interpretations yea may be of all places wherein Canonical Writers and Jesus Christ himself have spoken with any vehemence and vigour concerning the Holiness of our Mysteries the Duties of a Christian and the narrow way to Salvation we should be troubled to find one whereunto they have not given some blow haling them from their natural sense by Expositions false and contrary to the general Consent of the Fathers and Tradition of the Church that they might accommodate them to the relish and lusts of worldly men I will relate only some few to serve for Example S. Paul saith writing to the Corinthians 1 Si habutro omnem fidem Ita ut montes transferam charitatem autem non habuero nihil sum Et si distribuero in cibos pauperum omnes facultates meas si tradidero corpus meum ita ut ardesm charitatem autem non habuero nihil mihi prodest 1 Cor. cap. 15. Though I had faith to remove mountains and had not charity I were nothing And though I should distribute all my goods to the relief of the poor and though I should give my body to be burnt if I had not charity it would avail me nothing But Father Celot being resolved to maintain the contrary saying that we may suffer Martyrdom profitably and do those other works whereof the Apostle speaks like a Christian without any motion from Charity to defend himself from this passage so strong and so manifest he corrupts and subverts it in this manner He saith that this must be extended to the habit and not to the act and motion of Charity meaning that the actions of which S. Paul speaks may be meritorious holy and perfect though they be done without love to God and though we never think of him provided we be in an estate of Grace So that he maintains that a man who is in the estate of Grace cannot act otherwise than by this Charity whereof the Apostle speaks See his words 2 Eo loco habitum charitatis postulari ab Apostolo aio ego 3
the Church nor of Princes to punish Blasphemers nor count that amongst the Commandments of God which forbids blasphemy since according to the Divinity of this Father there will be none in effect they will be only sins of irreverence and venial The other Jesuits seem more moderate on this subject but if they appear in this less to blame they are it may be more indeed and they are much more dangerous than Bauny For the vice that proceeds to extremity and is visible in its excess is only for them that have no conscience but it surprises and insensibly engages those who have yet some fear of God when it is propounded with some temperament and when it is covered with some pretence which serves as a reason to commit it without scruple Escobar by Example in his Moral Divinity places amongst Problematick Questions whether all blasphemy be mortal sin And though he rank himself indeed amongst them that hold the affirmative yet he forbears not to say that it is no blasphemy when 1 Amans amasism Deam suam suum vocitat idolum a Lover calls his Mistress his Goddess and his Idol For after he had related divers opinions about this question according to his custom he joyns himself to those who excuse it from blasphemy and saith 2 Si coram medioctiter prudentibus obloquatur nullatenus blasphemiae nota afficiendus est hujusmodi utens locutionibus quia amanti a peria est adulatio at coram ruâ—icis haud cum omnino a gravi materialis blasphemiae piaculo liberarim Escob tom 1. Theol Mor. lib. 4. probl 21. If this Lover speak before persons of indifferent discretion be ought not in any sort be esteemed a Blasphemer because it is clear that it is only flattery but if he speak before gross witted persons he would not altogether exempt him from a grand material blasphemy If this reason take place there will be no blasphemy at all unless he who hears it believe that he who utters it speaks according to his judgment so this shall be only a material blasphemy that is the matter of blasphemy only So that there will be no true blasphemies but what are uttered by Infidels and impious persons who believe they speak truth when they blaspheme And according to this Rule the Tyrians and Sidonians blasphemed not when they said unto King Herod to flatter him that he spoke as a God and not as a man And this proud King ought not to have been eaten of worms as he was by the just Judgment of God for suffering these blasphemous words since the flattery was altogether manifest This reason may be made use of for a foundation of the Proposition of Tambourin and Azor who hold that to say This is as true as the Gospel or this is as true as God is no blasphemy And their reason is because it is visible that this is an excess against the divine Truth That is to speak properly that this is no blasphemy because it is visible that it is one Sanchez saith that he who swears lightly and unconcernedly without thinking on what he saith or through vanity sins only venially 3 Juramentum cui desuit tertius comes nempe judicium quod attinet ad necessariam jurandi causam debitam reverentiam est sola venialis culpa 3 siquidem sollus vanitatis superffuitatis peccatum est Sanch. op mor lib. 3. cap. 4. num 35. p. 17. The oath saith he whereunto the third condition is wanting to wit judgment when men swear without necessity or without the respect and reverence that is requisite is but a venial sin because the irreverence herein committed is not great being only a sin of vanity or of superfluity Filliutius saith the same thing and almost in the same words 4 Si desit juramento tantum judicium hoc est si fiat absque necessitate aut utilitate peccatum aliquod committitur Tale juramentum non est mortale si desit contamptus Filliut tom 2. qq mor. tr 25. cap. 11. num 332. 333. pag. 205. If judgment only be wanting to an oath that is to say if it be uttered without necessity or utility there is in it some fault And a little after An oath is not a mortal sin if it be without contempt We must not then say any longer in the Commandment that forbids Swearing Thou shalt not swear by God in vain but only thou shalt not swear falsely since that according to these new Divines we may without great sin swear in vain and out of vanity without necessity profit occasion or reverence which in swearing is due to God whom we take for Judge and Witness Filliutius's reason is 5 Licet aliquo modo sit contra Dei authoritatem tamen quia non fit contra illam in se sicut destruitur veritas ejus per mendacium sed tantum fit contra illam non tractando illam cum debita reverentie 3 ideo tantum committitur culpa venialis Ibid. num 333. Because though this oath thus made without necessity or reverence be in some sort against the Authority of God nevertheless because it destroys it not in it self as a lye destroys his truth and is not contrary unto him otherwise than as it renders him not all the respect that is due unto him it is but a venial sin As if it were a small matter to fail of our respect towards God and to demean our selves irreverently towards him and not to be troubled for offending against his Authority provided we do not absolutely destroy it This Author considers not that to destroy truth in our selves is no less a mortal sin than to destroy it in it self which is impossible For we are obliged to have it in us as our life by loving and honouring it and to chase it from us by contempt or negligence or by preferring other things before it which please us more can be no other than a mortal sin since this is truly to kill our selves and it in us And for the Authority of God it is certain that we cannot indeed deprive him of it any more than of his Power and to deny it were to become a Fool or an Atheist Since then it cannot be destroyed in it self nor in the opinion and judgment of men that have their reason found there remains but one way to destroy it so much as may be which is by contempt and irreverence which is committed against it by using it indifferently without respect to confirm what we say swearing without necessity or occasion and even of meer vanity So that if in this case and these circumstances the sin committed against the Authority of God and the reverence which is due unto him be a slight one as these Jesuits say it is it seems that there can never be any great one according to them in this matter Filliutius proceeds farther and maintains that to swear not only without occasion and reverence but
him believe their innocence And in case they meet not with a prudent Confessor who understands well these shifts and deceits and fall into the hands of one who seems to them too exact and would oblige them to restore what they have privily taken away he holds that they are excused from giving credit unto him and though the Church it self should interpose and employ its Authority and press them by vertue of a Monitory to come unto Confession and Restitution they would not be obliged to obey it Because in this occurrent saith he neither the wife nor the children aforesaid ought or can be forced by the Confessor to reveal the things they so purloyn'd though the Creditors should obtain Mandates and Letters monitory from the Bishop From the same Principle he affirms in the same Chapter pag. 200. That a person who is indebted for very great and notable sums may to the prejudice of his Creditors give away part of his goods so that he to whom the gift is made shall not be obliged to restore any part thereof to his Creditors if he be not constrained by Law See how he concludes after he had proposed contrary opinions upon this point I say then that he who hath received by Deed of Gift any moveable or immoveable of a man in great debt is not obliged to quit it in favour of the Creditors of such a Debtor before the Law constrain him In the following Page he propounds another Case upon the same Subject and he resolves it after such a manner as authorizes and maintains not only injury but revenge also and murder Some one saith he entreats a Souldier to smite and beat his neighbour or to burn the Farm of a man who hath offended him It is demanded whether the Souldier failing the other who prayed him to do all these outrages ought to repair out of his own Estate the damage which proceeded thence Upon which he makes a Relation of some Authors who hold the affirmative and without quoting any one for the contrary opinion he broaches it as from himself and saith for refuting the first My opinion is not as theirs For no man is obliged to restore if he have not violated Justice Doth he so who submits himself to anothers pleasure when he only entreats of him a favour This goodly reasoning may serve to justifie from doing wrong not only all men who employ their friends or other persons to do mischief making use of them as their hands and instruments and so doing the very same action and injury with them whether they commit theft or murder or other violences but it may also justifie all persons who induce and sollicite others unto wickedness and the Devil himself when he tempts men and causes them to sin because temptation and sollicitations unto evil force not the will and are only inducements and prayers as it were which depend absolutely on them who are tempted and sollicited to do evil which many do also refuse and reject Behold whereunto the Maxims of this Casuist are reduced They teach to steal with subtilty and confidence without being obliged unto restitution to speak against ones conscience without lying to forswear without treachery to make a mock of Justice without being deficient in the respect due thereto to contemn the Authority of the Church without disobedience and finally to defraud Creditors ruine Commerce destroy publick Faith and make havock of our neighbours goods without injustice ARTICLE VII THOU SHALT NOT BEAR FALSE WITNESSE BEaring false witness is a sin so odious and contrary to the Law of Nature that the most corrupted persons and who boast of all other sins cannot endure to be accused of this nor even of a simple lye God hath always forbidden it whether before a Judge or in private but the Jesuits favour it at any time and the sins which depend on it to wit slander and detraction Dicastillus demands 1 An teneatur quis retractare suum falsum dictum quando ex co inferenda est alteri mors seu mutilatio etiamsi testi se retractantâ— fidem resultet simile damnum Exi stimo si non peccaverit mortaliter dicendo illam falsitatem non teneri cum tanto suo incommedo cognita veritate dictum retractare Legatur Tolet. lib. 5. cap. 59. Less dub 7. Reginald sect 2. num 45. Dicastill lib. 2. tract 2. disp 8. dub 7. num 92. Whether he be obliged to retract who hath affirmed some falsity which will cost the loss of life or member to another when the witness by his retractation will himself incur the same penalty He answers That he believes that if the false witness have not sinned mortally by bearing this false testimony he is not obliged after that he understands the truth to retract what he hath said so exposing himself to so great evils That is to say it is lawful to kill an innocent after we have slandered him rather than put our selves into any danger by retracting since it is not so much the offences or the Hangmen as the witnesses that put him to death who is condemned upon their depositions That we may have a clearer Exposition of this Question this Jesuit sends us his to Treatise of Restitution where he saith 1 Ad nibil tenetur is qui falâ—um testimonium dixit ex ignorantia vel inadvertentia etlaâ—si ex â—llo tesâ—imonio contingaâ— aliquem damnari Less cap. 3. dub 7. Haec sententia in praxi tuta est sed prior magis videtur consona rationi Dicastill lib. 2. tract 2. disp 3. dub 2. num 57. That the opinion which holds that a person who hath born false witness through ignorance or inadvertence without sinning mortally is obliged to nothing though this false testimony do occasion the condemnation of a man is safe in practice though the opinion seem to him more agreeable unto reason For he regards no more to follow the light of natural reason and equity than the Rules of Faith but only his own sense and the Authority of such as he is in resolving difficulties which refer to Manners and Religion And this is one of the most goodly and commodious Principles of the Jesuits Divinity that we are not obliged to restitution when we have not sinned mortally in wronging our neighbour For if this Principle be sure they who find a great sum of money or take it by ignorance and heedlesness are not obliged to restore it because they have not sinned mortally in taking of it We may see the consequence of this in the Chapter of Restitution But if you joyn hereto the conditions the Jesuits require to make an action a mortal sin false witnesses will thereby receive great comfort and encouragement boldly to act and acquit themselves in this duty The same Author is not less favourable to him who suffers himself to be corrupted by money not to bear false witness but not to testifie the truth He approves Azors observation who saith
hath taken care to accommodate persons of Quality 1 Senatores ac reliqui primarii virl qui Reipublicae negotia in aliud tempus rejâ—cere commode nequeunt Dicastillus de Sacr. Miss tract 5. disp 5. dub 10. sect 5. n. 207. If they cannot saith he conveniently remit publick Affairs to another time they are exempt from the observation of this Precept But that we might not accuse him for accepting of mens persons he allows Servants not to go to Mass 2 Famuli in locis ubi non est nisi una Missa extraordinariam adhibere diligentiam non tenentur v.g. nimis diluculo surgendo ab ordinario moderato somno nimis demendo vel aliquid simile praestando Ad hoc enim non obligat praeceptum num 214. If they must rise early thereto and sleep less than they are accustomed If they were urged with their own affairs sleep and drowsiness would not keep them in bed and if their Master had commanded them to rise very early in the morning to follow him on hunting or to do some infamous service for him this Jesuit would have obliged him to obey him and yet he dispenses with them for obeying the Commandment of the Church to serve God in hearing Mass if to observe this Commandment they must rise earlier and sleep less than they were wont But if you would not hear a whole Mass these new Casuists hold that one may satisfie this duty by hearing part only and it 's a shameful thing to see how they talk thereof how they divide and cut into pieces as we may say the most holy things in Religion disputing and contesting one against another to determine precisely what part of the Mass may be omitted and what is absolutely obliging to be heard to satisfie the Churches Command They are all agreed that he sins against the Commandment who comes short of any notable part of the Mass but they are at difference how to determine this notable part Coninck saith that he wants a notable part who hears the Mass only from after the Gospel Others reduce it to a moity or third part of the Mass as Azor who demands 3 Qualem secundum communem sententiam committeret qui veniret post Evangelium Coninck de Sacr. q. 83. a. 6. dub unico num 285. pag. 285. What part of the Mass shall we hold to be notable And he answers That all are agreed that the half or third part is notable Bauny in his Sum cap. 17. pag. 277. is bolder than the rest because he speaks after them For he determines more particularly what part of the Mass we are obliged to hear precisely to satisfie the Precept This is my opinion saith he 1 that he who hears the Mass from the Offertory inclusively until the after Communion satisfies the Precept because he finds himself present at all the essential and integral parts of that Mass I know not who hath given him Authority to diminish the Mass in this sort and to chop off from it as I may say the head and the feet by cutting away the beginning and the end of it There are found some others who are yet more subtle on this subject and teach us to cut the Mass in two in the middle and to joyn the parts of two different Masses together thereof to make up one entire one Azor in the place I now alledged gives us this Expedient and saith that he that will make use thereof shall acquit himself very well of his obligation to hear Mass 4 Quaenam paâ—s Missae notabilis habeatur Inter omnes convenit dimidiam aut tertiam partem esse notabilem Azor lib. 7. cap. 8. pag 630. Because he doth all that is contained in the Precept as much as the Church doth simply command when the whole Mass is heard since it commands not the whole Mass to be beard of one and the same Priest Coninck is also of this opinion in the place which I have now cited where he makes this Question 5 Praeslat quidquid in praecepto continetur Nec enim praecipit Ecclesia ut ab eodem Sacerdote totum integrum Sâ—crum sed simpliciter ut Missam totam audiamus Azor supra Whether he who comes to the Mass for example a little before the Consecration and hears that which remains of that same Mass and the beginning of another said after to the Consecration exclusively satisfies the Precept of the Church He affirms that they who hold the negative are grounded upon a very strong and effectual reason which is that he who carries the matter so hears not any one whole Mass whereunto nevertheless he is obliged by the 6 Utrum qui venit ad unum Sacrum paulo ante consecrationem v. g. audit reliquam partem illius Sacti aliud sequens usque ad consecrationem exclusive satisfacit praecepto Ecclesiae Coninck supra num 287. Commandment of the Church 1 Quia cum duae illae partes sint inter se omnino independentes non possunt integrum sacrificium constituere constituere consequenter qui eas audit non audit Missam integram ad quam tamen obligatur haec ratio in rigore loquendo hanc sententiam satis efficaciter probat Ibid. For that saith he these two parts of two different Masses are independent one on another they cannot make up an entire Mass whereunto nevertheless he is obliged and this reason speaking in rigour proves this of inion effectually enough But quickly after these words he adds that notwithstanding this 2 Quia tamen plurimi Doctores docent contrarium absolute loquendo talis est securus probabile est cum satisfacere Ibid. Because there are many Doctors who teach the contrary he that so carries the business is in safety and its probable that he satisfies this Commandment He assures this man upon a simple probability and the word of some Casuists against the Authority of the Church since he confesses that it intended a whole entire Mass and which is not so if it be not said of one and the same Priest and against reason which he acknowledges to be evident and forcible as if the new Casuists ought to carry it against the Church and Reason it self He is not content to renounce reason to follow a new and corrupt practice and to take the liberty to overturn the Laws of the Church under pretence of expounding them he would also cast the fault of this licentiousness and contempt of the Authority and Laws of the Church upon it self For to support his answer he saith 3 Ratio est quia cum Ecclesia sciat suas leges ita à gravibus Doctoribus explicari hoc ipso quo torum explicationes permittit publice imprimi doceri censetur suum praeceptum juxta eas moderati Ibid. That the Church knowing well that the Laws are thus expounded by grave Doctors and suffering their Expositions to be
in these terms 4 Dixisti pesse quem partem Missae ab uno partem ab alio Sacerdote exaudire Rogo an possit prius pars posterior Missae audire postea prior You have said that we may hear the one half of the Mass of one Priest and the other half of another I demand of you whether we 1 Non video si verum est quod secunda opinio docet quin satisfaciat praecepto qui aedem Sacram ingressus duos Sacerdotes rem Sacram facientes audit simul per partes Nam quod attinet ad attentionem potest ad utrumque animum intendere Quare secunda sententia mihi solum probatur quia tantorum virorum est autoritate non efficaci ratione suffulta Azor inâ—…it mor. lib. 7. cap. 3. pag. 631. may first hear the latter part of the Mass and afterwards the former To which he answers thus 1 Asserit Turrianus select p. 2. d. 16. dub 7. quia praeceptum quoad substantiam impletur solum invertitur ordo Escobar tract 1. Exam. 11. num 73. pag. 189. Turrianus saith you may because so that is accomplished in substance which is commanded by the Precept and therein he only inverts the order This is not the only point wherein the Jesuits make no dainty to overturn the order which the Holy Ghost hath established in the Mysteries of Religion and the Church He inquires also 2 Potestne fimul eodem tempore audiri quando ex duobus Sacerdotibus unus Missam inchoaret alter consecrationi daret operam Affirmat Hurtado de Sacr. tom 2. de Missa dub 5. diff 4. quia ut Azorius p. 1. lib. 7. cap. 3. q. 3. alt potest quis ad utrumque Sacerdotem animum intendere Ibid. Whether we may at once and the same time hear the Mass of two Priests whereof the one is newly begun and the other is at the Consecration And he answers That Hurtado believes it because as Azor saith one may attend to both Priests So that a person who could at the same time apply his mind to five or six Priests who said Mass together and were in divers parts of the Sacrifice might in a moment discharge the obligation of hearing Mass taking from each a part to compose one compleat Mass in his mind And it is upon this Principle that Escobar relyes when he saith also 3 Unde aliquis docuit probabiliter ex praecepto ex voto ex poenitentia injuncta obligatum tres Missas audire satisfacere si simul à tribus Sacerdotibus codem tempore celebrantibus audiat Ibid. That he holds that probable which a certain Author whom he names not hath taught that a person obliged by precept vow or penance imposed on him to hear three Masses may fulfil it by attending at once to three Priests who celebrate at once There is nothing so easie as thus to accomplish Commands Penances Vows But this accomplishment will deserve a greater penance than the former because it is nothing else than a playing with and deriding Religion approaching unto impiety when a man is commanded to hear three Masses or to hear them as they are ordinarily heard in the Church and according to the custom of Christians fearing God and attending at his holy Sacrifice of the Mass and not in a way so new-conceited and capricious this ridiculous invention of hearing three Masses and even twenty or thirty in less than half an hour if so many Priests were to be had who might celebrate at the same time being never heard of by any man before SECTION II. That according to the Jesuits the Precept of hearing Mass may be satisfied by hearing them without internal Devotion Attention Intention even with an express intent not to satisfie and whilst we entertain our selves alone or with others with other discourse and wicked and dishonest thoughts ALL that we have hitherto produced out of the Jesuit-Divinity concerning the obligation and manner of hearing Mass respects precisely the outward Sanctification of Festivals only We must say one word of the internal Disposition and see with what devotion and attention they hold it ought to be heard that the Precept may be fulfilled Coninck taking the question higher and making it general of all the Commands of the Church maintains 4 Non est necessarium ut quis praecise satisfaciat praecepto Ecclesiae ut habeat internam aliquam devotionem Coninck de Sacr. q. 83. a. 6. dub unico num 301. pag. 286. That to satisfie it there needs no internal devotion and that it suffices to do that outwardly which it ordains and he draws from this general Maxime a particular Conclusion which is as follows 5 Hinc sequitur eum qui etiam voluntarie est toto tempore Sacri distractus modo sibi sufficienter praesens sit ut Sacro cum externa devotione assistat satisfacere Ecclesiae praecepto Ibid. num 302. Possumus Ecclesiae praeceptis satisfacere per actum qui non sit vera virtus imo qui sit peccatum Ibid. num 296. That he who is distracted the whole time of the Mass even voluntarily satisfies the Precept of the Church provided he have attention enough to attend at the Mass with outward devotion He had said before according to the same Maxime that the Command of the Church may be satisfied by an action not only not good but even really a sin Azor saith the same thing and he expounds it more at length 1 An praecepto legi satisfaciat qui cum peccato rem audit divinam Azor instit mor. lib. 7. cap. 6. pag. 635. It is demanded saith he whether he that sins in hearing the Mass fulfils the Commands He reports first of all the opinions of the Ancients saying 2 Fuere qui senscrint generatim nullum praeceptum per actum qui sit per se malus implerl Ibid. There have been some heretofore who believed generally that no precept could be accomplished by an action that was bad in it self They that held this opinion were all the holy Fathers and ancient Divines 3 Sed horum opinio communi est omnium consensu resutata Ibid. But their opinion if you will believe this Author is now rejected with common consent Without doubt because it is not large and obsequious enough for those who have since invented others to sweeten or rather to disparage and abolish the Commands of the Church The reason of this Jesuit is 4 Neque enim ad praeceptorum substantiam servandam requiritur charitas aut boni finis voluntas Because according to him charity and the desire of a good end is not necessary to accomplish a precept in substance that is to say simply to perform what is commanded He reduces his Maxime into Examples which is a means to facilitate the understanding and practice thereof he takes these Examples in part from S. Antonin whose opinion he relates and
refutes This Saint saith that a man who goes to Church only to look on Women and to entertain himself with filthy thoughts in beholding them so that without this he would not go to Church nor hear Mass on a Feast-day doth not fulfil the Precept if he be there with such inclinations But Azor rejects this opinion eluding it by a very subtle distinction He durst not absolutely deny but this man commits a great crime but he saith that this crime is against God who forbids lust and not against the Church which obligeth him to hear Mass See how Azor discourses 4 S. Antoninus id voluit dicere ejusmodi hominem alias ad templum nullo modo accessurum nisi soeminae videndae aut intemperanter appetendae causa peccare Id verum est non in co quod rem divinam praeceptum omiserit sed quod templum adierit libidinis voluptatis gratia quod depravato animi affectu rem divinam audierit Quare si generatim loquamur omnino verum est aliorum responsum hoc praeceptum servari etiamsi cum peccato res divina audiatur Ibid. S. Antonin would say that a man that goes not to Church but only to see a woman and satisfie his lustful desires who without this would not go sins Which is true not because he hath violated the Command to hear Mass but because he went to Church for a dishonest passion and pleasure only and because he heard the Mass with a spirit altogether disordered For this cause speaking in general we must hold their opinion true who say that though we sin in hearing Mass yet we fail not of satisfying the precept Tambourin saith the same thing in terms capable to strike them with horrour who know what the Sacrifice of the Mass is 5 Si Missae quis intersit ad videndam mulierem vel ad aucupandam vanam gloriam satisfacit si interim sacrificio vacet Tambur l. 4. decal c. 2 sect 1. num 17 If any one saith he attend at Mass to look on a woman or to attain some vain-glory he satisfies the precept provided in the mean time he attend to the Sacrifice According to this Author the Sacrifice of the Mass may be attended to whilst we entertain and feed our minds with thoughts of lust and vanity that is to say that we may at the same time sacrifice unto God and the Devil with this difference that tends also to the Devils advantage that he is adored and served truly with the heart by the vanity and lust which it voluntarily entertains Whereas the homage we owe unto God in this estate is only apparent and altogether outward and consists in nothing but the presence and posture of the body And yet this Jesuit will have the Church hold it self satisfied with this manner of being present at Mass as with an entire accomplishment of its Precept Nothing more horrible can be spoken against God more disparaging against the Church more ridiculous and contrary to common sense as well as Faith and the most general resentments of all Religion Filliutius speaks also the same thing and brings the same Example 6 Prava intentio adjunctâ—… voluntati audiendi Missam uâ— aspiciendi mulierem libidinose c. dummodo sit sufficiens attentio non est contrarie huic praecepto quare satisfacit Filliutius qq moral tom 1. tr 5. c. 7. num 212. pag. 128. An evil intention saith he as to look lasciviously upon a woman joyned with a will to bear Mass is not contrary to the precept wherefore he who hears in this disposition fulfils it provided he give that attention which is necessary And a little after speaking of this attention which is required in hearing Mass he confesses indeed that it were to fail herein to use idle talk and discourse of affairs during the Mass but with this exception 1 Nisi vel consabulatio esset discontinuata partim scilicet loquendo partim attendendo uncommuniter fieri solet Ibid n. 216. Vnless this discourse be sometimes discontinued by talking one while and then attending as it is usually done He hath reason to say as it is usually done because it happens hardly at all to be done otherwise amongst the most indevout themselves Since though the respect for these Mysteries could not induce them unto this interruption yet the diversity of the actions and Ceremonies of the Mass would constrain thereunto all those who would not appear openly profane Private discourses must needs be interrupted that we may kneel when the Priest descends to the foot of the Altar at the beginning of the Mass when we stand up at the reading of the Gospel when we kneel after the Gospel or at least before the Consecration there is no person so irreligious as not to be silent and shew respect at least outwardly when the Priest elevates the Host to adore and cause it to be adored by the assistants as also when he communicates and when he gives the Communion So that when Filliutius saith that talking and discourse of affairs are lawful during the Mass and are not contrary to the Commandment of the Church provided they be interrupted and mingled with some attention he declares openly enough that they be all allowed there scarcely ever being other than of this sort Bauny is of the same opinion and he expounds it also more clearly in his Sum Chap. 17. pag. 278. in these terms Men and women who during the Sacrifice of the Mass interrupt your prayers by unnecessary discourses though often repeated fulfil the Commandment And he adds a little after That to be slightly distracted in prayer is of it self a slight fault Whence he infers That albeit it be reiterated and multiplied during the Mass it can never proceed to be mortal And from this discourse he concludes absolutely Therefore to speak a few words to our neighbour after returning to prayer and from thence to talk again is not a thing which in rigour can hinder our attention to the Mass But if nevertheless any person would chat continually during the Mass these Doctors would not condemn him to hear another provided these discourses were not about serious matters but slight and which did not too much employ the mind Filliutius supra num 216. Non de re seria sed levi quae non impediat attentionem necessariam And this attention is altogether external and consists in observing what the Priest doth and the Ceremonies he practises at least by intervals that he may stand up when he reads the Gospel kneel at the Consecration and adore our Lord at the elevation of the consecrated Host According to this Doctrine Tradesmen and women who prattle and are merry together at their work may in like manner chat and entertain themselves while they are together at the Mass because their ordinary discourses being not seldom about serious things which busie their minds they may apply the same
according to the Rules of Penance He supposes also that Fasting is a remedy for his disease and profitable to his health So that in not fasting he sins against the Laws of the Church of temperance and of charity which he owes to himself hurting his health already impaired and augmenting his disease And for all that he pretends that because he is sick he is dispensed with for Fasting That is to say that the same disease which obligeth him to fast dispenseth with him for it and the Church which dispenseth with none but for to relieve their weakness agrees to this dispensation which relieves not but hurts him and pretends not to oblige him unto a Fast which if it commanded him not he could not omit without sin The same must be said of him adds the same Author who cannot sleep in the night of a considerable time unless he sup For he would be over-charged too much by fasting in this manner I would not oblige him neither to so much as to make his Collation in the morning in which case the Fast would continue without intermission though he might do it conveniently for no man is bound to do extraordinary things that he may fast and to abandon the right which he hath to eat about Noon The Indulgence of the Church in suffering and permitting to eat at Noon on Fasting-days is a right according to this Casuist which its Children may make use of against it to the neglect of its Commandment He finds not that it is needful to do any thing extraordinary nor to the least change in the order or hour of our repast to keep the Fast and obey the Church And in another place he finds it very reasonable that to content a friend for his own benefit pleasure or any the least reason in the world and even without reason we should alter the usual course of our repast and advance the time two or three hours or more if we will 1 Idemque dico de to qui de necte absque perfecta coena calefieri notabiliter nequit Ibid. Finally we must say the same so this Author goes on of him who unless he sup well is troubled to get heat because this is judged in some sort prejudicial to his health There are who pretend to be dispensed with for Fasting because it heats the blood say they and causes headach and this man would dispense with it because it chills the feet and hinders sleep I pass by these ridiculous excuses and visible contradictions and observe only that these people take the liberty to say whatsoever comes in their minds and make use of all sorts of reasons to fight against the truth and know to turn to the right and the left not as S. Paul to go unto God and conduct his neighbour thither but rather to confound the ways of God make his Commands obscure and to teach men thereupon to violate them without fear of punishment 2 I'la infirmitas notabilis est quae operationes ordinarias cujeslibet personae impedit ita ut qui consueto suo operandi modo eas exercere commode cum jejunio nequeat si Scholasticus quomodocunque cum difficultate studeat si mulier ex debilitate jejunii servitia domus incommode operetur si vie suum officium artemque jejunando difficulter exerceat ex hoc capite à jejunando legicime excussbuntur Ibid. num 17. That infirmity or some notable prejudice of health hinders the common actions of every person and we judge that he who after his usual labour cannot if he fast conveniently perform these actions is much damnified by the Fast Whence it follows that if Fasting makes a Scholars head ake or disturb his Studies if a woman cannot by reason of her Fasting conveniently attend her houshold affairs if a man perform the excercises of his profession with more difficulty for that cause he is not obliged thereto nor others such like That is to say that Fasting which is commanded for our mortification is not obliging when it mortifies us and that we may be obliged to fast we must be able to do it commodiously and without difficulty It appears clearly that according to these Maxims of the Jesuits few people are obliged to the Fasts of the Church though they have been generally instituted for all the Faithful observed in all Ages past by all those who had any fear of God of what condition soever they were and that the Church hath always thus understood it as may yet farther appear seeing that in the general Commandment which it hath given so many Ages since it doth not nor ever did except any condition exercise or sort of life But the Jesuits leave hardly any Profession which they exempt not from Fasting 3 Officium ars quam quis exercet si lit ex se laboriosa hominem per se libtrat à jejunio ita quidem etiamsi in illo exercitio quis inveniatur posse tolerare jejunium adhuc ad illud non adstringetur Arator etiam robustus patientissimusque inediae imo etiam ditissimus non obligatur ad jejunium quia per se omnes aratores excusantur ex alia parte Ecclesiae non intendit privare Fideles suo officio modoque vivendi Tambur lib. 4. decal cap. 5. sect 7. num 18. The Office or Mystery saith Tambourin which a man exercises if it be laborious as there are scarce any which are not exempts him of it self from Fasting and though there be some in the same Trade who can endure Fasting yet he is not obliged For example a strong Labourer and who can fast with ease is not obliged to fast though he be very rich because all Labourers as such are exempt And besides this the Church hath no intention to deprive the Faithful of the exercise of their Trades and course of life It must be added that in establishing the Precept of Fasting for all those who could bear it it had an intention not to exempt those who should make false pretences for their not observing it It seems that he would have us believe that the Laws of the Church regard not the Salvation of every one in particular but that they are only general Ordinances of an outward Policy and therefore odious and unjust from which every one may save and exempt himself that can He adds also more particularly 1 Dico propter authoritatem Dectorum esse probabile nullos artifices aâ—que adeo Sutores obligari ad jejunia Ibid. num 28. That it is probable because of the Authority of the Doctors who are of that Judgment that no Handicrafts and by consequence neither are Taylors obliged to fast And so the Artificers and those who labour in bodily occupations making up the greater number in comparison of whom the rest of Mankind are small in number the Precept of Fasting shall be of small use and shut up in very narrow bounds But least any resentment
they know probably or certainly that they will break it it is more difficult to grant them this permission yet we grant it them with probability enough because the Victualler provides not these meats nor provokes us to buy them with a direct intention that we should break our Fast or sin but that he might get their money as all Buyers know See here a motive very capable to purifie this action Interest which spoils the best things and corrupts the most holy actions purifies and justifies this which of it self is vicious By this reason it will be lawful for a Merchant to sell poyson to a man whom he knows certainly will take it or give it to another to destroy him since as poyson kills the body so meats taken against the Churches Prohibition kill the Soul and he that sells the poyson hath no more than he that sells the meat a direct intention to kill or commit a spiritual or corporal murder but only to benefit himself by this murder and to get money by the sale of this meat and poyson which are the cause of this murder And so it will be lawful to induce any person whomsoever to violate all the Commands of the Church and God himself if therein we find our interest and can draw thence some temporal benefit ARTICLE III. Of the Commandment to communicate at Easter and of the Confession to be made every year That according to the Jesuits Divinity these Commandments may be satisfied by true Sacriledges THe Jesuits expound not the Commandment to communicate at Easter more Christian-like than the other Commandments of the Church They pretend that it may be satisfied by a sacrilegious Communion and by receiving the Body of Jesus Christ with a criminal conscience nay though we know that we are in this estate and in mortal sin This opinion is common in their School and passes there for indubitable 2 Eucharistiam indigne sumens in die Paschatis satisfacit praecepto Sa verbo Eucharist in fine pag. 233. He that receives the Eucharist unworthily on Easter day satisfies the Precept quoth Emanuel Sa. 3 Quid si indigne communicem Imples tamen per voluntariam susceptionem praeceptum Escobar tract 1. exam 12. cap. 2. num 15. pag. 196. Escobar supposes a person to communicate unworthily and saith that he faileth not for all that to accomplish the Precept though he receive the Body of Jesus Christ in this estate voluntarily that is to say though he commit Sacriledge voluntarily as the rest whom we shall relate hereafter say it openly Filliutius saith the same thing almost in the same terms He demands 1 An impleatur praeceptum per voluntariam susceptionem Sacramenti etiamsi indigne suscipiatur Repondeo â—ico primo impleri Filliutâ— qq mor. tem 1. tract 4. cap. 2. num 60 pag. 74. Whether this Precept may be accomplished by receiving the Sacrament voluntarily though unworthily And his answer is that it is accomplished Amicus is of the same opinion and he expounds it yet better than others 2 Ecclesiasticum praeceptum Eucharistiae omnino censeo impleri etiam per sacrilegam manducationem Amiâ—uâ— tom 8. disp 29. sect 5. num 53. pag. 401. I hold absolutely saith he that the Precept of the Church touching the Eucharist is fulfilled even by a sacrilegious Communion This is a strange manner of obeying the Church by committing Sacriledges and it is to honour it very much to imagine that it may be satisfied with Sacriledges It must needs be that they who believe it to be capable of this have an horrible opinion of it they must believe that it commands Sacriledges if they believe that by obeying it they may be committed and it may be satisfied by these same Sacriledges For when it commands any thing it cannot be satisfied otherwise than by doing what it commandeth Jesus Christ hath said in the Gospel that they who despise the Church and its Pastors despise himself and these Jesuits make the Church to say that those who despise Jesus Christ and dishonour him outragiously by a sacrilegious Communion cease not to obey and satisfie it by fulfilling its Commandment Celot having undertaken to prove against Aurelius that the Laws of the Church and Gospel may be accomplished without love speaks thus against him 3 Non enim post disputata cum Judaeis disputare potest Aurelius qâ—i Paschalem synaxim cum conscientia lethalis peccati celebraverit quin is nihilominus Ecclesiae paruerit justitiam operum si non justitiam legis impleverit Celot lib. 3. cap. 3. pag. 124. Aurelius cannot doubt but that he who communicates at Easter in mortal sin satisfies the Command of the Church and yet though he accomplisheth not the Justice of the Law he accomplisheth for all that the Justice of Works He would not that his Adversary should doubt of this Maxime though he knew well enough that he did not only doubt of it but condemn it Coninck to prove that the Commandment of the Church may be fulfilled not only in an estate of sin but also by an action which is a sin brings an Example of a man who communicates unworthily at Easter 4 Ut patet in jejunante eb vanam gloriam aut in Paschate indigne communicante Coninck de Sacr. q 83. a. 6. d. uni n. 296. p. 286. As it is clear saith he in his case who fasts for vain-glory or communicates unworthily at Easter Which he propounds as a constant Maxime and of which it was not lawful to make any doubt saying 5 Nâ—m certum est eum satisfacere praecepto Ecclesiae qui simulat se jejunare ex pietate pie in Paschate communicare etsi jejunet ob vanam gloriam sacrilege communicet Ibid. That it is certain that he satisfies the Precept of the Church who makes shew of Fasting for devotion and of communicating at Easter with requisite piety though he fasteth out of vain-glory and commits Sacriledge in communicating This is also the opinion of Azor answering those who demand 6 An qui in die Paschatis Sacramentum Eucharistiae accipit indigene videlicet aut sua peccata non legitime confessus aut alio quolibet modo lethalis peccati conlcius Ecclesiae praeceptum implear Whether he who receives the Sacrament of the Eucharist unworthily on Easter day whether it be that he hath not well confessed his sins or for some other defect which renders him guilty of mortal sin do accomplish the Precept of the Church For he saith 7 Respondeo eum implere Is enim licet jus divinum frangat aut violet male ad Sacramentum accedendo legis tamen Ecclesiasticae substantiam servar Azor Instit lib. 7. cap. 30. pag. 734. That he accomplisheth the Precept of the Church And his reason is Because though he violate the Law of God by approaching the Sacrament in a wicked estate yet he observes the Law of the Church in the
substance of it Whereunto he adds for a second reason or as an explication of the former 8 Nimitum Ecclesia nihil aliud sus lege sanxit nisi ut in Paschate ad sacra mysteria accedentes ejus participes efficiamur Ibid. That the Church by its Command requires no other thing but that approaching at Easter unto the sacred Mysteries of the Eucharist we receive them in some manner whatsoever it be Nay he saith that not only he who is guilty of mortal sin but also an Excommunicate or interdicted person approaching to the Altar and receiving the Body of Jesus Christ in that disposition doth satisfie the Commandment of receiving the Sacrament at Easter He inquires 9 Rogâ—biâ— an idem sit judicium de eo qui excommunicatione vel interdicto adstrictus ad hoc Sacramentum accedit Whether the same judgment may be past on him who being excommunicated or interdicted approaches to the Sacrament with that he had already made of him who receives it in an estate of mortal sin And his answer is 1 Respondeo cum quidem peccare ac non solum contra jus divinum sed etiam contra jus Canonicum seu Ecclesiasticum facere Jus enim divinum prohibet ne male quis accedat jus Canonicum in universum excommunicatos interdictos à Sacramentis excludit prohibit attamen ab eo susceptum indigne Sacramentum est ratum ipse Ecclesiae legem leu praeceptum adimplere videtur Ibid. That indeed he doth really offend not only against the Divine but also against the Canon and Ecclesiastick Law because the Divine Law forbids him to approach the Sacrament in a wicked estate and the Canon Law doth absolutely exclude the excommunicate and the interdicted persons from the Sacraments themselves and forbids them to approach them notwithstanding the Sacrament which he receives is a true Sacrament though he receive it unworthily and it seems that herein he accomplisheth the Precept and Law of the Church The Canon Law is nothing else but the Laws of the Church transcribed and the Commandment to communicate at Easter is part of the Canon Law So that if we may satisfie the Commandment of communicating at Easter by violating the Canon Law in this same Communion as this Jesuit will have it it follows that we may obey the Canon Law in despising it and honour the Church in deriding and even in outraging it externally as the Souldiers treated Jesus Christ in adoring and prostrating themselves before him Dicastillus is of the same opinion and maintains that it is more probable 2 Magis communis probabilior sententia est praeceptum hoc impleri per quamcunque voluntariam susceptionem Sacramenti Eucharistiae etiam sacrilegam Solum enim praecipitur substantia actus non vero modus Dicastill de Sacr. Eucharist tract 4. disp 10. dub 8. num 175. Suscipiens reverenter ad minus in Pascha Eucharistiae Sacramentum nisi forte de consilio proprii Sacerdotis ob aliquam rationabilem causam ad tempus ab ejus perceptione duxerit abstinendum Concil Lateran sub Innoc. 3. cap. 21. de paen remiss c. Omnis The more common and probable opinion saith he is that this Precept is fulfilled by a voluntary receiving of the Sacrament in what sort soever even sacrilegiously because the substance of the act only is commanded and the manner not at all according to Suarez Could the Church express better the manner wherein it would have us communicate than by joyning the Command of Confession and Penance to that of the Communion and ordaining that we should receive this Sacrament with reverence reverenter And to the end we might not mistake this Reverence for any external Ceremony it allows none to communicate at Easter whom their Confessors judge not fit that afterwards it might be performed with the greater preparation and respect Could it say more clearly that it would not be obeyed by Sacriledges As for what concerns the preparation unto the Communion as the Jesuits make the Command to communicate altogether outward and politick and maintain that we may accomplish it in any state of sin wherein we are and even by a sin and sacrilegious manducation it is no wonder if they scarcely ever speak of internal dispositions required to a worthy participation and content themselves with those only which are external And also they speak of them so slightly and so unworthily as is sad to consider and gives cause of astonishment and indignation to those who have any knowledge of the Grandeur and Holiness of this Sacrament And because they hold Confession to be a principal preparation to the Communion it seems they believed that it was not reasonable to require it to be done in any better manner than the Communion Escobar saith 3 Potro probabiliter asseritur invalida confessione praecepto satisfieri quia Ecclesia internos actus non potest praecipere sed solum externum confessionis Escobar tract 1. exam 12. cap. 3. num 27. pag. 199. That it is a probable opinion that we may satisfie the Command which obliges us to confess by an invalid Confession because the Church cannot command the internal but only the external act of Confession He had said already before not as a probable opinion but as an assured thing that we might satisfie it by defective Confession answering this question 4 Satisfitne praecepto Ecclesiae confessione informi Ita quo modo proxime de praecepto divino affirmavi Ibid. cap. 1. num 9. pag. 195. May we satisfie the Churches Commandment by a Confession out of form And answering thereto in these terms We may satisfie it truly as well as the Commandment of God made thereupon as I have but now said Filliutius had said before the same thing speaking thus It is demanded whether we may accomplish this Precept of Confession by a Confession valid but without form He answers That we may accomplish it His reason is Because we accomplish the Precept in substance And as to the end of the Precept which is Grace it falls not under the Precept That is to say that when the Church commands sinners to confess themselves it intends not to oblige them to return into a state of Grace and reconcile themselves with God but only to confess as they please themselves He saith the same thing a little above and adds that being not obliged by the Command of the Church to confess our selves worthily and receive Grace in the Sacrament neither are we bound to prepare our selves to confess well nor to do what lies in us to attract the Grace and Mercy of God 2 Nec tenetut homo se disponere ad gratiam ex vipraecepti confessionis quia etiamsi reciperet Sacramentum informe dummodo recipiat verum Sacramentum satisfacit praecepto Dispositio autem ad gratiam est finis ejus vel quid consequens Finis autem non cadit sub praecepto
Ibid. tract 6. cap. 8. num 209. pag. 158. Neither is a man bound saith he by vertue of the Precept of Confession to dispose himself for Grace For provided the Sacrament he doth receive be a true one though it be without form that is to say without Grace he satisfies the Precept As for the disposition unto Grace it is the end or consequent of the Sacrament which falls not under the Precept Amicus holds with the same Doctrine and grounds it on that Principle 3 Poenalia sunt potius restringenda quam amplificanda Cum igitur confessionis praeceptum fit poenale non debet amplificari mandatum confessionis formatae sed potius restringi ad actum confessionis informis modo quoad essentiam Sacramenti sit valida Amicus tom 8. disp 17. sect 3. num 30. pag. 277. That we ought rather restrain than extend things that are imposed as penalties Whence he draws this Conclusion that the Precept of Confession being imposed as a penalty we must not extend it so far as to say that it obliges to make such a Confession as may restore the sinner into a state of Grace but we must rather restrain it saying that it is enough to make one that doth not confer any Grace on him provided it be a true one and have every thing else that is of the Essence of a Sacrament This is not to honour the Sacraments very much to pretend that they are not Gods gifts and graces but penalties and that when Jesus Christ commanded Confession he ordained it not for our good as a remedy and a means to deliver us from our sins and to restore us into Grace but that he imposed it upon us as a yoke and a punishment as this Jesuit saith Cum igitur praeceptum confessionis sit poenale He that should say that a remedy ordained by a Physitian to a Patient were a punishment and not a relief and a favour or when a Prince ordains that a Malefactor shall confess the crimes whereof he desires the abolition that he uses him rigorously and imposes an odious Law upon him would pass for a man of little discretion and without common sense The Malefactors hold this for a favour in such sort that they ordinarily set down their crimes in the Letters of Grace which are given them in the most effectual and odious terms they can and are for the most part ready to say therein more than they have done rather than less to heighten the favour of the Prince to render it more ample and the better to assure themselves of it though this Declaration be publick and in writing And yet Amicus dares say that the Confession which God and the Church demand of a sinner that he may obtain remission of his sins which is secret and by word of mouth only is rather a penalty than a grace and favour Praeceptum confessionis est poenale He proceeds farther and is not contented to say the Church commands us not to confess Christianly and faithfully according to the Institution of Jesus Christ but he dares maintain also that it cannot so much as command us to receive the Sacrament of Penance in the manner instituted by Jesus Christ 4 Non posset Ecclesia praecipere totum Sacramentum poenitentiae prout est formaliter à Christo institutum The Church saith he cannot so much as command all that which is required to the Sacrament of Penance as it was instituted by Jesus Christ He expounds himself better 1 Quaeâ—itur an impleatur praeceptum confessionis per confessionem validam sed informem Respondeo dico impleri â—uâ—a impletur praeceptum quoâ—d substantiam finis autem qui est gratia non cadit sub praeceptum Filliutius qq mor. tom 1. tract 7. cap. 2. num 42. pag. 171. by rendring a reason of this opinion 1 Quoniam hoc Sacramentum prout est à Christo institutum essentialiter includit dolorâ—m internum confâ—ssionem omnium peccatorum etiam internorum Sed Ecclesia non habet potestatem supra actus mere internos Igitur non posset hoc Sacramentum prout â Christo institutum est praecipere Ibid. sect 2. num 12. pag. 274. For that saith he the Sacrament as it was instituted by Jesus Christ contains essentially an inward grief for sin and a confession of all even inward sins Now the Church hath no power over acts purely internal And by consequence cannot command the Sacrament in the manner it was instituted by Jesus Christ This language stifles the prime notions of Christianity and the most common apprehensions of the Church which believes on the contrary that it cannot command the Sacrament of Penance otherwise than Jesus Christ hath instituted it and hath no other design in this Commandment nor in all the rest than to follow the orders of Jesus Christ and to execute his will it being far remote from its thoughts and all appearance that it would have us receive the Sacraments otherwise than Jesus Christ hath ordained For it is not established for other end than to obey Jesus Christ and to cause him to be obeyed and its Commands serve only for the accomplishment of those of Jesus Christ according to the order which was given it in the persons of the Apostles when he sent them to teach all people and instruct them how to observe all things he had commanded them Docentes eos servare omnia quaecunque mandavi vobis Matth. 28. So that the Commands of Jesus Christ are contained in those of the Church and are as it were the Soul Spirit and Rule thereof since it doth nothing but confirm or determine what it is that Jesus Christ hath ordained and instituted as the usage of the Sacraments and the exercise of vertues which are good works Which shews that the Jesuits know not the estate of the Church nor its mind nor its conduct considering it as an humane and secular Society which regards only what is outward since it hath no other scope than civil peace and temporal happiness or as the Synagogue of the Jews which adhered only to the letter and outward exercises of Religion and Gods Law Though we cannot find in the very times of the Synagogue it self any Jews who have affirmed that the Law might be fulfilled by Sacriledges and manifest and voluntary impieties as the Jesuits who say that we may satisfie the Commandments of communicating confessing hearing Mass and such like by doing them with contempt and all sorts of unsufferable irreverences and profanations Which never came into the head of any man but Casuists who had any sense of Religion But these are the new fruits of the new Divinity of the Jesuits and the rare Method which they have invented for the Service of God in the Church it self and under the new Law which is all Spirit and Charity which considers not what it sees but what it sees not as saith S. Paul because it neither
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